ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Société d’investissement pour l’agriculture tropicale SA (SIAT) v État belge

(Case C-318/10) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Tax legislation - Deduction as business expenses of expenses incurred as payment for the provision of services - Expenses incurred in relation to a service provider established in another Member State in which that provider is not subject to tax on income or is subject there to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous - Deductibility conditional upon the provision of proof of the genuine and proper nature of the services and the normal nature of the related payments - Obstacle - Justification - Combating tax evasion and avoidance - Effectiveness of fiscal supervision - Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes - Proportionality)

2012/C 287/03

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société d’investissement pour l’agriculture tropicale SA (SIAT)

Defendant: État belge

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — Tax legislation allowing the deduction of business expenses incurred by a resident taxpayer, but not allowing the deduction of such expenses if the taxpayer resides or is established in another Member State in which that taxpayer is not subject to any tax on income or is subject there to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous — Restriction on the freedom to provide services

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which payments made by a resident taxpayer to a non-resident company for supplies or services are not to be regarded as deductible business expenses where the non-resident company is not subject, in the Member State of establishment, to tax on income or is subject, as regards the relevant income, to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous than the applicable regime in the former Member State, unless the taxpayer proves that such payments relate to genuine and proper transactions and do not exceed the normal limits, whereas, under the general rule, such payments are to be regarded as deductible business expenses if they are necessary for acquiring or retaining taxable income and if the taxpayer demonstrates the authenticity and amount of those expenses.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Vogtländische Straßen-, Tief- und Rohrleitungsbau GmbH Rodewisch (VSTR) v Finanzamt Plauen

(Case C-587/10) (1)

(Taxation - Value-added tax - Supply of goods - Taxation of chain transactions - Refusal to exempt on grounds of failure to produce the VAT identification number of the person acquiring goods)

2012/C 366/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vogtländische Straßen-, Tief- und Rohrleitungsbau GmbH Rodewisch (VSTR)

Defendant: Finanzamt Plauen

Intervener in support of the defendant(s): Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the 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) — Supply of goods — Taxation of chain transactions — Purchase of goods by a company established in a Member State from another company, established in a third State and which is not registered for VAT purposes, which obtains its supplies from a company established in another Member State, the goods being dispatched directly by the supplier to the acquiring company — Situation where the supplier submits the acquirer’s VAT identification number

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(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 98/80/EC of 12 October 1998, should be interpreted as not precluding the tax authority of a Member State from making the exemption from VAT of an intra-Community supply subject to the provision by the supplier of the VAT identification number of the person acquiring the goods, with the proviso that the grant of that exemption should not be refused on the sole ground that that requirement was not fulfilled where the supplier, acting in good faith and having taken all the measures which can reasonably be required of him, is unable to provide that identification number but provides other information which is such as to demonstrate sufficiently that the person acquiring the goods is a taxable person acting as such in the transaction at issue.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-130/10) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Choice of legal basis - Articles 75 TFEU and 215 TFEU - Entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - CFSP common positions and decisions - Joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and from the Commission)

2012/C 295/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented initially by E. Perillo and K. Bradley, and subsequently by A. Auersperger Matić and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and K. Najmanová, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of decision — Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 346, p. 42) — Choice of legal basis

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-552/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 - Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India - Decision 2006/38/EC - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 8(9) - Undertakings offered in connection with anti-dumping proceedings)

2013/C 26/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Usha Martin Ltd (represented by: V. Akritidis and E. Petritsi, dikigoroï, and by F. Crespo, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), European Commission (represented by T. Scharf and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-119/06: Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union and European Commission in which the General Court dismissed an action, on the one hand, for annulment of Commission Decision of 22 December 2005 amending Commission Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire rope and cables originating in, inter alia, India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 54) and, on the other hand, for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in, inter alia, India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Usha Martin Ltd to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-383/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Tax legislation - Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad)

2013/C 225/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 56 and 63 TFEU — Breach of Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Restriction on freedom to provide services and free movement of capital — National provisions establishing a tax exemption applicable only to interest paid by Belgian banks, excluding that paid by non–resident banks — Discriminatory taxation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court declares that:

1. By introducing and maintaining a system of discriminatory taxation of interest payments by non-resident banks, resulting from the application of a tax exemption reserved only to interest payments by resident banks, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

2. The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Swiss Confederation v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Landkreis Waldshut

(Case C-547/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - External relations - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport - Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Access of Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes - Articles 8 and 9 - Scope - Exercise of traffic rights - Decision 2004/12/EC - German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich Airport - Duty to state reasons - Non-discrimination - Proportionality - Burden of proof)

2013/C 123/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Swiss Confederation (represented by: S. Hirsbrunner, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, K. Simonsson and K. P. Wojcik, Agents); Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze, Agent, assisted by T. Masing, Rechtsanwalt); Landkreis Waldshut, (represented by M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 9 September 2010 in Case T-319/05 Switzerland v Commission by which that court dismissed the action brought by the Swiss Confederation for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/12/EC of 5 December 2003 on a procedure relating to the application of Article 18(2), first sentence, of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1993 L 15, p. 33) — Measures adopted by Germany relating to the approaches to Zurich airport — Wrongful assessment of the applicability of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 to the contested measures — Misinterpretation of the scope of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons — Failure to take account of the rights of the airport operator and the people living around the airport — Infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders the Swiss Confederation to bear, in addition to its own costs, all of the costs incurred by the European Commission both at first instance and on appeal.

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Landkreis Waldshut to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/3

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Peter Hehenberger v Republik Österreich

(Case C-188/11) (1)

(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 817/2004 - Financial support for agri-environmental production methods - Checks - Beneficiary of agricultural aid - Fact of having prevented an on-the-spot check from being carried out - National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years - Whether compatible)

2012/C 200/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Hehenberger

Defendant: Republik Österreich

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of said Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30) — Checks and penalties — Legislation of a Member State requiring, in the event that a recipient of agricultural support prevents a check, repayment of all support received over a period of 5 years — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999, does not preclude national rules which provide that, where a farmer who is the beneficiary of financial support prevents an on-the-spot check of the land concerned, all the support already granted during the commitment period to that farmer in relation to an agri-environmental measure must be repaid, even where it has already been paid in respect of a number of years.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppe Sibilio v Comune di Afragola

(Case C-157/11) (1)

(Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 2 - Concept of ‘an employment contract or relationship defined by law, collective agreements or practice in force in each Member State’ - Scope of the framework agreement - Clause 4, point 1 - Principle of non-discrimination - Persons carrying out ‘work of social utility’ with public authorities - National rule excluding the existence of an employment relationship - National rule establishing a difference between the benefit paid to socially useful workers and the remuneration received by workers engaged under a contract of definite and/or indefinite duration by the same public authorities and carrying out the same activities)

2012/C 133/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giuseppe Sibilio

Defendant: Comune di Afragola

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli — Interpretation of Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Principle of non discrimination — Unemployed persons registered on mobility lists or as job seekers engaged by public authorities for a fixed term carrying out work of social utility/work of public utility (known as socially useful workers/publicly useful workers) — National legislation establishing a difference in treatment in terms of pay between socially useful workers/publicly useful workers and workers engaged under a contract of indefinite duration by the same public authorities performing the same duties.

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 2 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the relationship between socially useful workers and the public authorities for whom they carry out their activities does not fall within the scope of that framework agreement where, and which is for the national court to determine, those workers are not covered by an employment relationship as defined by national law, collective agreements or practice in force, or the Member States and/or social partners have exercised the option granted to them under point 2 of that clause

(1) OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fabio Caronna

(Case C-7/11) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 77 - Wholesale distribution of medicinal products - Mandatory special authorisation for pharmacists - Conditions for granting)

2012/C 258/07

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Palermo

Party in the main proceedings

Fabio Caronna

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Palermo –Interpretation of recital 36 and Articles 76 to 84 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Wholesale distribution of medicinal products — Conditions under which authorisation may be granted for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products — National legislation which makes the wholesale distribution of medicinal products by pharmacists and persons authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public subject to the requirement to obtain an authorisation imposed on wholesale distributors — Whether permissible

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 77(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Commission Directive 2009/120/EC of 14 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to obtain authorisation for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products is applicable to a pharmacist who, as a natural person, is also authorised under domestic law to operate as a wholesaler in medicinal products.

2. A pharmacist who is also authorised under domestic law to operate as a wholesaler in medicinal products must satisfy all the requirements imposed on applicants for and holders of authorisation for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products in Articles 79 to 82 of the Directive.

3. That interpretation cannot, of itself and independently of a law adopted by a Member State, give rise to or aggravate liability in criminal law on the part of a pharmacist who has engaged in activity as a wholesale distributor in medicinal products without the requisite authorisation.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
1.

Rules that, the Portuguese Republic, by failing within the prescribed period: — to publish the national and international river basin district management plans; — to publish and to submit to the public, including users, for comment the envisaged river basin district management plans, and — to send the European Commission the copies of those plans, has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 13(6) 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, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14(1)(c) and Article 15(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Germany) — Natthaya Dülger v Wetteraukreis

(Case C-451/11) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Association Council Decision No 1/80 - Article 7, first paragraph - Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Thai national who was married to a Turkish worker and lived with him for more than three years)

2012/C 295/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Giessen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Natthaya Dülger

Defendant: Wetteraukreis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Interpretation of the first indent of the first paragraph of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence of members of a family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Thai national who cohabited with her Turkish husband for more than three years and until her divorce

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, which was signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that a member of the family of a Turkish worker, who is a national of a third country other than Turkey, may invoke, in the host Member State, the rights arising from that provision, where all the other conditions laid down by the provision have been fulfilled.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.