ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-326/11) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(g), read in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) - Supply of buildings and the land upon which they stand - Supply of a building undergoing work with the view to the creation of a new building by transformation - Continuation and completion of the work by the purchaser after the supply - Exemption from VAT)

2012/C 287/27

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 4(3)(a) and 13B(g) 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) — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Exemption for supplies of buildings and the land on which they stand — Supply of a building on which work is being carried out with a view to the creation of a new building — Continuation and completion of the work by the purchaser after the supply

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(g) of the 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, read in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in that first provision covers a supply of immovable property consisting of a plot of land and an old building undergoing transformation into a new building, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of that supply, the old building had only undergone partial demolition work and was, at least in part, still used as such.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Cido Grupa SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-471/11) (1)

(Accession of new Member States - Transitional measures - Agricultural products - Sugar - Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 - Basis of assessment and rate applicable for the charge on surplus stocks)

(2012/C 331/16)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās Tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cido Grupa SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8) — Calculation of tax on surplus sugar stocks held by operators — Notions of ‘quantity in question’ and ‘product concerned’ in the case of sugar syrup

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1667/2005 of 13 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the basis of assessment for the charge payable on a surplus stock of sugar syrup (CN code 2106 90 59) is the quantity of white sugar (CN code 1701 99 10) actually contained in that product and the rate of that charge is the rate of the import charge applicable to white sugar, increased by EUR 1,21/100 kg.

(1) OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
1.

Declares that the Kingdom of Spain: — by failing to adopt, by 22 December 2009, river basin management plans, except in the case of the river basin district of Catalonia, and by failing to send to the European Commission and other Member States concerned, by 22 March 2010, copies of those plans, in accordance with Article 13(1) to (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Directive 2008/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, and — by not having undertaken, by no later than 22 December 2008, except in as regards the river basin districts of Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, Tenerife, Guadiana, Guadalquivir, Andalusian Mediterranean basin, Tinto-Odiel-Piedras, Guadalete-Barbate, Galician coast, Miño-Sil, Douro, Western Cantabria and Eastern Cantabria, the process of public information and consultation concerning the proposed river basin management plans, in accordance with Article 14(1)(c) of that directive, has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Lowlands Design Holding BV v Minister van Financiën

(Case C-524/11) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Romper bags for babies and young children - Subheadings 6209 20 00 or 6211 42 90)

(2012/C 331/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lowlands Design Holding BV

Defendant: Minister van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 651/2007 of 8 June 2007 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2007 L 153, p. 3) — Sleeping bags for babies and for children

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature forming 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 romper bags such as those at issue in the main proceedings must be classified under subheading 6209 20 00 as ‘babies’ garments and clothing accessories, of cotton’ if, on account of their size, they are suitable for young children of a body height not exceeding 86 cm. If that is not the case, those products must be classified under subheading 6211 42 90 as ‘other garments, women’s or girls’, of cotton’.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG

(Case C-173/11) (1)

(Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Article 7 - Sui generis right - Database relating to football league matches in progress - Concept of re-utilisation - Localisation of the act of re-utilisation)

2012/C 379/12

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd

Defendant: Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20), in particular Article 7 — Right of the maker of a database to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of part of the contents of the database — Concepts of extraction and re-utilisation (Article 7(2) of the directive) — Database containing information on football matches in progress (‘Football Live’)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that the sending by one person, by means of a web server located in Member State A, of data previously uploaded by that person from a database protected by the sui generis right under that directive to the computer of another person located in Member State B, at that person’s request, for the purpose of storage in that computer’s memory and display on its screen, constitutes an act of ‘re-utilisation’ of the data by the person sending it. That act takes place, at least, in Member State B, where there is evidence from which it may be concluded that the act discloses an intention on the part of the person performing the act to target members of the public in Member State B, which is for the national court to assess.

(1) OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/17

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen

(Case C-299/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Taxable transactions - Application for the purposes of a business of goods obtained ‘in the course of such business’ - Treatment as a supply for consideration - Sports pitches belonging to the taxable person and transformed by a third person)

2013/C 9/26

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Gemeente Vlaardingen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5(5), Article 5(7)(a) and Article 11(A)(1)(b) 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) — Taxable transactions — Use of materials for the purposes of the business — Use, for exempt activities of a business, of land owned by it and converted to its order by a third person for remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(7)(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, read in conjunction with Article 11(A)(1)(b) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the application by a taxable person, for the purposes of an economic activity exempt from value added tax, of sports pitches which he owns and which he has had transformed by a third person can be subject to value added tax calculated on the basis of the aggregate arrived at by adding to the transformation costs the value of the ground on which the pitches lie, to the extent that the taxable person has not yet paid the value added tax relating to that value or to those costs, and provided that the pitches at issue are not covered by the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(h) of the Sixth Directive.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/15

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof (Austria)) — K v Bundesasylamt

(Case C-245/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Humanitarian clause - Article 15 of that regulation - Person who enjoys asylum in a Member State and is dependent on the assistance of an asylum seeker because she suffers from a serious illness - Article 15(2) of the regulation - Obligation on that Member State, which is not responsible according to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that regulation, to examine the application for asylum made by that asylum seeker - Conditions)

2013/C 9/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Asylgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K

Defendant: Bundesasylamt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(2) and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Responsibility of a Member State to examine, for humanitarian reasons, an application for asylum made to it, even if it is not responsible for that examination in accordance with the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Close relationship between the asylum-seeker and a person who is very vulnerable and who already enjoys the right to asylum in that Member State

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which is not responsible for examining an application for asylum pursuant to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that regulation becomes so responsible. It is for the Member State which has become the responsible Member State within the meaning of that regulation to assume the obligations which go along with that responsibility. It must inform in that respect the Member State previously responsible. This interpretation of Article 15(2) also applies where the Member State which was responsible pursuant to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of Regulation No 343/2003 did not make a request in that regard in accordance with the second sentence of Article 15(1) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen KG v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-131/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 - Article 3(4) - Application of the quota system in the sugar sector - Surplus quantity of sugar found by the national authorities of a Member State during an a posteriori investigation carried out at the producer’s premises - Whether that surplus is to be taken into account when establishing the final production figures for the marketing year during which the difference came to light)

2013/C 9/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 of 8 June 1982 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 1982 L 158, p. 17) — Surplus quantity of isoglucose found subsequently by the authorities of a Member State during an inspection — Whether it is possible to take that surplus into account when establishing the final production figures for the marketing year during which the surplus came to light

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 of 8 June 1982 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 392/94 of 23 February 1994, must be interpreted as not being applicable in a situation in which a surplus quantity of sugar has been found by the national authorities in the context of an a posteriori investigation carried out at the producer’s premises if the surplus quantity constitutes C sugar.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Grande Área Metropolitana do Porto (GAMP) v Comissão Directiva do Programa Operacional Potencial Humano, Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social

(Case C-579/11) (1)

(Structural funds - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Geographical eligibility - Implementation of an investment co-financed by the European Union from a place located outside of the eligible regions and by an operator established in such a place)

2013/C 46/19

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grande Área Metropolitana do Porto (GAMP)

Defendants: Comissão Directiva do Programa Operacional Potencial Humano, Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social

Iintervening parties: Instituto Nacional de Administração, Sindicato dos Quadros Técnicos do Estado, Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa, Instituto do Desporto de Portugal

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 174, 175 and 176 TFEU, of Articles 5 to 8, 22, 32, 34, 35 and 56 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25) and Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ 2003 L 154, p. 1) — Structural operations — EU funding — Operational Programmes — Eligibility of expenditure — Common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of European Union primary law concerning economic, social and territorial cohesion and Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 must be interpreted as not precluding an investment co-financed by the European Union from being implemented from a place located outside of the eligible regions and by an operator established in such a place, provided that the investment targets specifically and identifiably the eligible regions.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
2.

Annuls Article 1(i) of 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, by that provision, the European Commission does not simply find that Verhuizingen Coppens NV had participated in the agreement on a system of false quotes, known as ‘cover quotes’, from 13 October 1992 to 29 July 2003, but finds that company liable for the agreement on a system of financial compensation for rejected offers or for not quoting at all, known as ‘commissions’, and attributes to it liability for the single and continuous infringement;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp

(Case C-361/11) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Multifunctional printers combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function - CN code 8443 31 91 - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008)

2013/C 63/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification of multifunctional printers consisting of the assembled combination of three units (printer, scanner and photocopier) — Classification, prior to 1 January 2007, under subheading 8471 60 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, with resulting exemption from customs duties, by reason of application of the Court’s judgment in Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others [2008] ECR I-9489 — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in so far as it classifies under CN code 8443 31 91 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Regulation No 2568/87, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, multifunctional printers, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function, released for free circulation in April 2009.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-279/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Incorrect transposition - Annexe II - Point 1(a) to (c) - Judgment of the Court of Justice - Finding of infringement - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Lump sum payment - Member State’s ability to pay - Economic crisis - Assessment on the basis of current economic data)

2013/C 46/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and D. O’Hagan, acting as Agents, and E. Regan, SC, and de C. Toland, BL)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 20 November 2008 in Case C-66/06 Commission v Ireland concerning the infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Application for the imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 20 November 2008 in Case C-66/06 Commission v Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU.

2. Orders Ireland to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 1 500 000.

3. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.