ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA

(Case C-551/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Concentrations of undertakings in the book publishing market - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Nominee holding agreement - Ineffective grounds)

2013/C 9/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: O. Fréget, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, O. Beynet and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J. B. Pinçon, avocats)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 13 September 2010 in Case T-279/04 Éditions Jacob v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed Odile Jacob’s action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) — Manifest error of assessment — Breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-576/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Scope ratione temporis - Public works concession - Sale of land by a public body - Construction project established by that body for the redevelopment of public spaces)

2013/C 252/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, A. Tokár and C. Zadra, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller, and A. Wiedmann, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 2 and Title III of 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Public works concession — Rules — Municipality of Eindhoven

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the entity entrusted with the exercise of essential functions listed in Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, is independent of the undertaking which provides railway transport services, in accordance with Article 6(3) of that directive and Annex II thereto and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, and by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 11 of Directive 2001/14 within the prescribed time limit, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd

(Case C-225/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112 - Exemptions - Article 151(1)(c) - Supply of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships in the territory of a Member State)

2012/C 174/17

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Able UK Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Article 151(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions relating to certain transactions treated as exports — Dismantling of obsolete US Navy ships carried out on the territory of a Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 151(1)(c) 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 supply of services such as that at issue in the main proceedings, made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and consisting in dismantling obsolete ships of the Navy of another State party to that treaty, is exempt from VAT under that provision only where

— those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and

— those services are supplied for members of the armed forces who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011
1.

Declares that by not applying national conservation measures to all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States, which are entitled to protection under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, and also by not correctly defining the conditions to be complied with in order to be able to derogate from the prohibitions laid down by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 5 and 9(1) and (2) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/3

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Anton Vinkov v Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost

(Case C-27/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Non-recognition in national law of the right to a judicial remedy in respect of decisions imposing a financial penalty and the deduction of points for certain breaches of road traffic regulations - Purely internal situation - Inadmissibility of the reference)

2012/C 217/05

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton Vinkov

Defendant: Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 82(1)(a) TFEU and Article 91(1)(c) TFEU and Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16) — Interpretation of Articles 47, 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Compatibility with EU law of national rules excluding the right to bring an action before a court challenging decisions relating to financial penalties following administrative offences in road traffic cases amounting to BGN 50

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria), made by decision of 27 December 2010 (Case C-27/11), is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — Helena Rubinstein, L’Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan Inc.

(Case C-100/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) - Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL - Community and national figurative and word marks BOTOX - Declaration of invalidity - Relative grounds for refusal - Damage to reputation)

2012/C 194/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Helena Rubinstein, L’Oréal SA (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Allergan Inc. (represented by: F. Clark, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-345/08 and T-357/08 Rubinstein and l’Oréal v OHIM — Allergan (Botolist and Botocyl), by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘BOTOLIST’ for goods classified in Class 3, against Decision R 863/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 May 2008, which set aside the decision of the Cancellation Division rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark, submitted by the proprietor of the Community and national figurative and word marks ‘BOTOX’ for goods classified in Classes 5 and 16 and services classified in Class 42 — Interpretation and application of Art. 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Art. 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Relative grounds for refusal — Damage to reputation — Interpretation and application of Art. 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Art. 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Helena Rubinstein SNC and L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Södertörns tingsrätt — Sweden) — Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB

(Case C-141/11) (1)

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation conferring on employees an unconditional right to work until the age of 67 and providing for automatic termination of the employment relationship at the end of the month in which the employee reaches that age - Account not taken of the amount of the retirement pension)

2012/C 287/18

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Södertörns tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Torsten Hörnfeldt

Defendant: Posten Meddelande AB

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Södertörns tingsrätt — Interpretation of the general principle of law on the prohibition of age discrimination and of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation and collective agreement granting employees an unconditional right to work until the age of 67 and providing for automatic termination without notice of the employment relationship at the end of the month in which the employee turns 67, without taking account of the actual pension paid to him

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows an employer to terminate an employee’s employment contract on the sole ground that the employee has reached the age of 67 and which does not take account of the level of the retirement pension which the person concerned will receive, as that measure is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and labour-market policy and constitutes an appropriate and necessary means by which to achieve that aim.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Sommer v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien

(Case C-15/11) (1)

(Accession of new Member States - Republic of Bulgaria - Member State legislation making the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market - Directive 2004/114/EC - Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service)

2012/C 250/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leopold Sommer

Defendant: Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12), particularly of Article 17 thereof, and of paragraph 14 of Annex VI of the list referred to in Article 20 of the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 104) — Rules of a Member State which make the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market — Possible application of Directive 2004/114/EC

Operative part of the judgment

1. Paragraph 14 of Point 1 of Annex VI to the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union must be interpreted to mean that the conditions of access to the labour market by Bulgarian students, at the time of the events in the main proceedings, may not be more restrictive than those set out in Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service.

2. National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings provides for a more restrictive treatment of Bulgarian nationals than that given to third-country nationals under Directive 2004/114.

(1) OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö v A Oy

(Case C-48/11) (1)

(Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - EEA Agreement - Articles 31 and 40 - Directive 2009/133/EC - Scope - Exchange of shares between a company established in a Member State and a company established in a third State party to the EEA Agreement - Refusal of a tax advantage - Agreement on mutual administrative assistance in the field of taxation)

2012/C 295/12

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Defendant: A Oy

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Articles 31 and 40 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1992 L 1, p. 3) — Interpretation of Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (OJ 2009 L 310, p. 34) — Scope of application of that directive — Exchange of shares between a company established in a Member State of the European Union and a company established in a third state that is a member of the EEA (Norway) — Whether those transactions are treated for tax purposes in the same way as an exchange of shares between domestic companies or between companies established in Member States

Operative part of the judgment

Article 31 of Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 precludes legislation of a Member State which treats an exchange of shares between a company established in that Member State and a company established in a third country that is a party to that agreement as a taxable disposal of shares whereas such an operation would be neutral for tax purposes if it concerned only domestic companies or companies established in other Member States, if there is, between that Member State and the third country, an agreement on mutual administrative assistance in the field of taxation which provides for an exchange of information between the national authorities which is as effective as that provided for in Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Fra.bo SpA v Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein

(Case C-171/11) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - National certification procedure - Presumption of compliance with national law - Applicability of Article 28 EC to a private-law certification body)

2012/C 287/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fra.bo SpA

Defendant: Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 34, 101 and 106(2) TFEU — Application of those provisions to the activity of a private-law association (Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein), approved by a Member State as a certification body for certain products — Horizontal direct effect of Article 34 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to standardisation and certification activities of a private-law body, where the national legislation considers the products certified by that body to be compliant with national law and that has the effect of restricting the marketing of products which are not certified by that body.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — United States Polo Association v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-327/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ - Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark ‘POLO-POLO’)

(2012/C 331/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: United States Polo Association (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-228/09 United States Polo Association v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ for goods in Classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27 against the decision R 886/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 March 2009 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division partly refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word marks ‘POLO-POLO’ for goods in Classes 24, 35 and 39 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders United States Polo Association to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-160/11) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Article 136 - Exemptions - Articles 313 to 315 - Special margin scheme - Supply of second-hand vehicles by a taxable dealer - Vehicles previously supplied exempt from VAT to a taxable dealer by another taxable person which had a right of partial deduction of input tax)

2012/C 295/18

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 136, 313(1), 314 and 315 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Sale of second-hand vehicles to a final consumer — Application of the margin scheme where the dealer purchased the vehicle exempt from tax from a person which itself benefited from a partial deduction of input tax

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 313(1) and 314 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Articles 136 and 315 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable dealer is not eligible for the application of the margin scheme where it supplies motor vehicles considered to be second-hand goods, within the meaning of Article 311(1)(1) of that directive, which it has previously acquired exempt from VAT from another taxable person which had only a right of partial deduction of input VAT paid on the purchase price of those vehicles.

(1) OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-391/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/53/EC - Article 2(3) - Protection of the environment - End-of-life vehicles - Notion of producer)

2012/C 366/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and T. Materne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure by a Member State to failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 2(1) and (3) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34) — Notion of ‘vehicle’ and ‘producer’ — Free-of-charge delivery of end-of-life vehicles subject to conditions not provided for by the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the action

2. Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Belgium each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 305, 15.1.2011.