ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — A2A SpA, formerly AEM SpA v European Commission

(Case C-320/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Article 10 EC - Duty of loyal cooperation - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Principle of legal certainty - Duty to state reasons)

2012/C 49/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: A2A SpA, formerly AEM SpA (represented by: A. Santa Maria, A. Giardina and G. Pizzonia, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-301/02 AEM v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

2. Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2011 — Bank Melli Iran v Council of the European Union; French Republic; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; European Commission

(Case C-548/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of the funds of a bank - Failure to notify the decision - Legal basis - Rights of the defence)

(2012/C 25/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bank Melli Iran (represented by: L. Defalque, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Szostak, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, L. Butel and E. Ranaivoson, 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 delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 14 October 2009 in Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council by which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of paragraph 4 of Table B in the annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29) in so far as it relates to Bank Melli Iran and its branches — No individual notification of that decision — Breach of essential procedural requirements — No legal basis for the decision to freeze the appellant’s funds — Failure to respect the rights of the defence and the principle of effective judicial protection — Infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the right to property

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Bank Melli Iran to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Council of the European Union v Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd, European Commission, Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace)

(Case C-337/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of glyphosate originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) - Status of an undertaking operating under market economy conditions - Concept of ‘significant State interference’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) - State shareholder controlling de facto the general meeting of the producer’s shareholders - Equating such control to ‘significant interference’ - Assessment of an export contract stamping mechanism - Limits of judicial review - Assessment of the evidence submitted)

2012/C 295/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd (represented initially by D. Horovitz, avocat, and subsequently by F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis and A. Woolich, advocaten, K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and D. Moulis, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, N. Khan and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace) (represented by: J. Flynn QC)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 17 June 2009 of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-498/04 Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group v Council [2009] ECR II-1969, annulling, in so far as it concerns Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd., Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/2004 of 24 September 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2004 L 303, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) — Market economy treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief;

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

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
1.

Finds that, by failing to ensure the grant of rights of way on, over or under public property on the basis of transparent procedures, applied without discrimination and without delay, in accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), the Republic of Cyprus failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the national measures necessary for the implementation, first, of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and, secondly, of Art. 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those regulations;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Tankreederei I SA v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

(Case C-287/10) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Tax credit for investments - Grant linked to the physical use of the investments on national territory - Use of inland navigation vessels used in other Member States)

2011/C 63/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tankreederei I SA

Defendant: Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 56 EC — Tax credits for investments — Legislation under which such a credit is granted only if the investment is made in an establishment situated in national territory and physically used in that territory — Company engaged in international shipping activities which is established and taxable in Luxembourg but has made an investment consisting of the acquisition of an asset used primarily outside of the national territory — Obstacle to the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State pursuant to which the benefit of a tax credit for investments is denied to an undertaking which is established solely in that Member State on the sole ground that the capital goods, in respect of which that credit is claimed, are physically used in the territory of another Member State.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.08.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E.

(Case C-400/10 PPU) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Children whose parents are not married - Father’s rights of custody - Interpretation of ‘rights of custody’ - General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

2010/C 328/15

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. McB.

Defendant: L. E.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Child whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — National legislation requiring the father to obtain an order from the court with jurisdiction in order to have rights of custody in respect of the child which render wrongful the child’s removal or retention outside the child’s country of habitual residence.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from providing by its law that the acquisition of rights of custody by a child’s father, where he is not married to the child’s mother, is dependent on the father’s obtaining a judgment from a national court with jurisdiction awarding such rights to him, on the basis of which the removal of the child by its mother or the retention of that child may be considered wrongful, within the meaning of Article 2(11) of that regulation

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.
1.

Declares that, by systematically accepting, throughout the years 1998 to 2002, customs declarations of release for free circulation of fresh bananas by its customs authorities, although they knew or ought reasonably to have known that the declared weight of the bananas did not correspond to their actual weight and because of the Portuguese authorities’ refusal to make available own resources corresponding to the loss of revenue and interest due for late payment, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13, 68 and 71 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 290a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 89/97 of 20 January 1997, and under Articles 2, 6, and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and under the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Rouen — France) — Marc Berel and Others v Administration des douanes de Rouen, Receveur principal des douanes du Havre, Administration des douanes du Havre

(Case C-78/10) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Articles 213, 233 and 239 - Joint and several liability of several debtors for the same customs debt - Remission of import duties - Extinction of the customs debt - No possibility for a jointly and severally liable debtor to rely on a remission granted to another debtor)

2011/C 103/14

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Rouen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Berel, acting as agent of the company Port Angot Développement, Emmanuel Hess, acting as court-appointed administrator of the company Port Angot Développement, Rijn Schelde Mondia France SA, Receveur principal des douanes de Rouen Port, Administration des douanes — Havre port, Société Port Angot Développement, successor to Manutention de Produits Chimiques et Miniers Maprochim SAS, Asia Pulp & Paper France EURL

Defendants: Administration des douanes de Rouen, Receveur principal des douanes du Havre, Administration des douanes du Havre

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Rouen — Interpretation of Articles 213, 233 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Remission of import duties — Whether a co-debtor of a customs debt may rely on joint and several liability for customs obligations in order to benefit from a remission of import duties previously accorded to another co-debtor

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 213, 233 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as precluding the application, in the context of joint and several liability for a customs debt within the meaning of Article 213 such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a principle of national law which has the effect that a partial remission of duty granted on the basis of Article 239 to one of the debtors may be relied on by all the other debtors, so that the extinction of the debt provided for in point (b) of Article 233 of that Code relates to the debt as such and thus releases all the jointly and severally liable debtors from payment of the debt to the extent of the amount remitted.

(1) OJ C 113, 01. 05. 2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Case C-115/10) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Complementary direct national aid - Conditions for grant)

2011/C 226/10

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővarosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt.

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1), and Articles 1 and 10(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 113) — National legislation excluding producers engaged in a liquidation procedure from national complementary aid linked to the single area payment regime — Whether Member States may lay down conditions for eligibility for national complementary aid which do not apply to the grant of the Community aid in question

Operative part of the judgment

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 Decision 2004/281/EC of 22 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits national legislation which excludes from the benefit of complementary national aid legal persons carrying out an agricultural activity in the territory of the Member State in question, on the ground that they are the subject of voluntary dissolution proceedings, where a condition relating to the absence of such proceedings has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/17

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — État belge v Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe, acting as administrators in the insolvency of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA

(Case C-464/10) (1)

(Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(4) - Exemption - Article 13(B)(f) - Gambling - Services provided by a commission agent ‘buraliste’ acting in his own name but on behalf of a principal operating a business of taking bets)

2011/C 269/29

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendants: Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe, acting as administrators in the insolvency of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons — Interpretation of Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f), 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 L 145, p. 1) — tax exemption in respect of services supplied by a commission agent acting in its own name, but on behalf of a principal who organises supply of services referred to in that directive.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f) 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, in so far as an economic operator acts in his own name, but on behalf of an undertaking carrying on a bet-taking business, in the collection of bets covered by the exemption from value added tax under Article 13(B)(f), that latter undertaking is to be considered, in accordance with Article 6(4), to provide that operator with a supply of bets coming under that exemption.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
3.

The primary law of the European Union, Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement are to be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation which provides that, where an action brought by a career civil servant challenging a decision rejecting his candidature for a competition is based on the fact that the promotion procedure was contrary to clause 4 of the framework agreement, that action must be brought within two months of the publication of the competition notice. Nevertheless, such a time-limit could not be relied upon against a career civil servant, who has been a candidate in that competition, who has been admitted to the tests and whose name was placed on the definitive list of successful candidates for that competition, if that were liable to render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred by the framework agreement. In those circumstances, time for the purposes of the two-month time-limit could run only from notification of the decision annulling the civil servant’s admission to that competition and his appointment as a career civil servant in the higher group.
1.

Declares that, — by identifying as less sensitive areas all the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira and all the coastal waters of the Island of Porto Santo; — by subjecting to treatment less stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, such as the agglomerations of Funchal and Câmara de Lobos, discharged into the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira; — by failing to ensure, with regard to an agglomeration along the estuary of the River Tagus, namely Quinta do Conde, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3 of the directive; — by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomerations of Albufeira/Armação de Pêra, Beja, Chaves and Viseu and four agglomerations discharging on the left bank of the Tagus estuary, Barreiro/Moita, Corroios/Quinta da Bomba, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of the directive; the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 91/271;