ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz — Austria) — Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

(Case C-77/08) (1)

(Export refund - Differentiated refund - Time of the submission of the request - Export declaration - No proof of clearance for release for consumption in the destination country - Penalty)

2009/C 113/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH

Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz — Interpretation of the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as regards the recovery of amounts unduly paid and sanctions (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57) — Concept of the request for the differentiated part of the export refund — Imposition of the penalty in the event of incorrect information with regard to the destination country featuring in the export declaration

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a differentiated refund, the differentiated part of the refund is requested not at the time of presentation of the application provided for in Article 47(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 or of the documents relating to payment of the refund provided for in Article 47(2) of that regulation, but as soon as the document referred to in Article 3(5) of the regulation is presented. The inclusion in that document of information capable of leading to a refund in excess of the refund applicable and which is found to be incorrect gives rise, as a result, subject to the cases laid down in the third and seventh subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of that regulation, to the imposition of the penalty prescribed in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1).

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/21

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — In the proceedings brought by Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser

(Case C-13/08) (1)

(Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Self-employed frontier workers - Agricultural lease - Agricultural structure)

(2009/C 44/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser

Interested party: Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 12(1), 13(1) and 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Applicability of the principle of equal treatment to self-employed frontier workers — Farmer with Swiss nationality residing in Switzerland having entered into a lease agreement for land for agricultural use located in Germany.

Operative part of the judgment

Pursuant to Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, a contracting party must accord to the ‘self employed frontier workers’, within the meaning of Article 13 of that annex, of the other contracting party no less favourable treatment as regards access to self-employed activity and the pursuit thereof in the host State than that which is accorded by that State to its own nationals.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/17

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-532/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2009/C 153/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-10/08) (1)

(Taxation in Finland of second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States - Compatibility of national legislation with the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, the Sixth VAT Directive and Directive 2006/112/EC)

2009/C 113/17

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

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

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 90 EC and Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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), now Articles 167 and 168 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 providing for value added tax on the tax on vehicles and a right to deduct the corresponding amount from output value added tax — Application of the same taxable value to vehicles under three months old and to new vehicles — Application of a level of depreciation of 0,8 % per month to vehicles under six months old where there are no equivalent vehicles on the national market

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by allowing the tax referred to in Article 5 of Law No 1482/1994 on vehicle tax (autoverolaki (1482/1994)) of 29 December 1994 to be deducted from the value added tax, pursuant to Article 102(1)(4) of Law No 1501/1993 on value added tax (arvonlisäverolaki (1501/1993)) of 30 December 1993, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC and Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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, reproduced in Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

2. Declares that, by retaining, when taxing vehicles, the same taxable value for vehicles under three months old as for new vehicles, the Finnish Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC;

3. Orders the action to be dismissed as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Finnish Republic to pay, apart from its own costs, three-quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

5. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear the remainder of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/17

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-144/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 83/182/EEC - Tax exemptions - Temporary import of vehicles - Normal residence)

2009/C 180/27

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/112/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59) — Incomplete definition of normal residence for the purposes of determining whether there is an entitlement to an exemption

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by using an incomplete definition of normal residence for the purposes of determining whether there is an entitlement to a tax exemption in respect of the temporary import of vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another;

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/16

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-368/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Remedying of environmental damage - ‘Polluter pays’ principle))

2009/C 153/31

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and I. Dimitriou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;

2. orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-557/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/35/EC - Ship-source pollution and introduction of penalties for infringements - Failure to transpose)

2009/C 205/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and A. A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/22

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-422/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - Prevention and remedying of environmental damage - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 180/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and B. Schöfer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 301 of 22.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — American Clothing Associates SA and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Joined Cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Intellectual property - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark - Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property - Absolute grounds for refusal to register a trade mark - Trade marks identical with or similar to a State emblem - Representation of a maple leaf - Applicability to service marks)

2009/C 220/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: American Clothing Associates NV (represented by: P. Maeyaert, advocaat, N. Clarembeaux and C. De Keersmaeker, avocats) (C-202/08 P), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent) (C-208/08)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent) (202/08), American Clothing Asociates NV (represented by: P. Maeyaert, advocaat, N. Clarembeaux and C. De Keersmaeker, avocats (C-208/08 P)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 in Case T-215/06 American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 refusing registration as a Community trade mark of a sign representing a maple leaf in respect of goods in Classes 18 and 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and 6ter(1)(a) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883, as revised and amended — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration — Trademarks identical or similar to a State emblem — Representation of a maple leaf

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal brought by American Clothing Associates NV in Case C-202/08 P;

2. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 28 February 2008 in Case T-215/06 American Clothing Associates v OHIM, in so far as it annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1463/2005-1) rejecting the application for registration of a sign representing a maple leaf as a Community trade mark;

3. Dismisses the action brought by American Clothing Associates NV in Case T-215/06;

4. Orders American Clothing Associates NV to pay the costs in Cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08 P.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — EGN BV — Filiale Italiana v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Roma 2

(Case C-377/08) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(3)(a) - Deductibility and refunding of input VAT - Provision of telecommunications services - Supply of services for a customer established in another Member State - Article 9(2)(e) - Determination of the place where the service is provided)

2009/C 205/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EGN BV — Filiale Italiana

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Roma 2

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 9(2)(e) and Article 17(3)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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) — Supply of cross-border telecommunications services — Right of the supplier of such services to deduct input tax, as permitted under the domestic regime

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(3)(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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that a supplier of telecommunications services such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which is established in the territory of a Member State, is entitled under that provision to deduct or obtain a refund in that Member State of input value added tax on telecommunications services that have been supplied to an undertaking having its principal place of business in another Member State, since such a supplier would have had that right if the services at issue had been supplied in the territory of the former Member State.

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/18

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. v Finanzamt München II

(Case C-182/08) (1)

(Freedom of establishment and free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Acquisition of shares in a capital company - Conditions for taking into account, when determining the acquirer’s tax base, the reduction in value of the shares resulting from the dividend distribution)

2009/C 267/31

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co.

Defendant: Finanzamt München II

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC — Acquisition by a taxpayer who is entitled to a corporation tax credit of shares in a capital company which is fully taxable — National legislation providing for the taking into account, when determining the acquirer’s tax base, of depreciation of the shares by reason of the payment of dividends where the shares were acquired from a shareholder who is entitled to a corporation tax credit, but which excludes that reduction of the tax base where the shares were acquired from a shareholder who is not entitled to a tax credit of that kind

Operative part of the judgment

Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes the reduction in value of shares as a result of the distribution of dividends from the basis of assessment for a resident taxpayer, where that taxpayer has acquired shares in a resident capital company from a non-resident shareholder, whereas, had the shares been acquired from a resident shareholder, such a reduction in value would have reduced the acquirer’s basis of assessment.

This applies in cases where such legislation does not exceed what is necessary to maintain a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States and to prevent wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality and whose only purpose is unduly to obtain a tax advantage. It is for the national court to examine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is limited to what is necessary in order to attain those objectives.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/18

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Jacques Damseaux v État belge

(Case C-128/08) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Taxation of investment income - Double taxation convention - Obligation of the Member States under Article 293 EC)

2009/C 267/30

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jacques Damseaux

Defendant: État belge

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 56, 58 and 293 EC — Heavier taxation of investment income from abroad than of investment income paid by a company established in the Member State of residence — Obstacle to free movement of capital — Scope of conventions preventing double taxation — Obligation of Member States under Article 293 EC

Operative part of the judgment

In so far as Community law, in its current state and in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC does not preclude a bilateral tax convention, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a shareholder residing in another Member State are liable to be taxed in both Member States, and which does not provide that the Member State in which the shareholder resides is unconditionally obliged to prevent the resulting juridical double taxation.

(1) OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.