ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

(Case C-139/10) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Enforcement - Grounds for refusing enforcement - Compliance, in the State in which it was delivered, with the judgment in respect of which the declaration of enforceability is sought)

2011/C 355/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prism Investments BV

Respondent: J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 34, 35, 43, 44 and 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Grounds for refusal — Exhaustive list — Performance of the obligation under the national judgment which is the subject of the application for a declaration of enforceability

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as precluding the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking a declaration of enforceability of a judgment on a ground other than those set out in Articles 34 and 35 thereof, such as compliance with that judgment in the Member State of origin.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.05.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/4

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-387/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds - Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed - Evidence provided by way of a tax representative - ‘National’ financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives)

2011/C 340/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent.)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 49 EC and of Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — Legislation of a Member State restricting tax representation in respect of investment funds and real property investment funds to business trustees and financial institutions established in that State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only national financial institutions and national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment funds or real property investment funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area;

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

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium) — Procureur-generaal bij het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen v Zaza Retail BV

(Case C-112/10) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Opening of territorial insolvency proceedings - Conditions laid down by the applicable national law preventing the opening of main insolvency proceedings - Creditor empowered to request the opening of territorial insolvency proceedings)

(2012/C 25/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procureur-generaal bij het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen

Defendant: Zaza Retail BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 3(4)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — International jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the debtor does not have the centre of its main interests but in which it does have one of its establishments — Concepts of ‘conditions laid down’ and of ‘creditor’.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The expression ‘conditions laid down’ in Article 3(4)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, which refers to conditions, which, under the law of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of its main interests, prevent the opening of main insolvency proceedings in that State, must be interpreted as not referring to conditions excluding particular persons from the category of persons empowered to request the opening of such proceedings.

2. The term ‘creditor’ in Article 3(4)(b) of the Regulation, which is used to designate the persons empowered to request the opening of territorial insolvency proceedings, must be interpreted as not including an authority of a Member State whose task under the national law of that State is to act in the public interest, but which does not intervene as a creditor, or in the name or on behalf of those creditors.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Essen-NordOst v GFKL Financial Services AG

(Case C-93/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2(1) and 4 - Scope - Concepts of ‘supply of services effected for consideration’ and ‘economic activity’ - Sale of defaulted debts - Sale price lower than the face value of those debts - Assumption of responsibility by the purchaser for the recovery of those debts and for the risk of defaulting debtors)

2011/C 370/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Essen-NordOst

Respondent: GFKL Financial Services AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 4, 11A(1)(a) and 13B(d)(2) and (3) 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) — Concepts of supply of services for consideration and economic activity — Factoring — Purchase of risky debts at a price calculated by reference to the probability of debtors’ default — Assumption by the factor of responsibility for recovering the debt and the risk of default

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 4 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that an operator who, at his own risk, purchases defaulted debts at a price below their face value does not effect a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) and does not carry out an economic activity falling within the scope of that directive when the difference between the face value of those debts and their purchase price reflects the actual economic value of the debts at the time of their assignment.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Medeva BV v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-322/10) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases (‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’)

(2012/C 25/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medeva BV

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Whether there exist further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a multi-disease vaccine

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate relating to active ingredients which are not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the application for such a certificate.

2. Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other requirements laid down in Article 3 are also met, that provision does not preclude the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate for a combination of two active ingredients, corresponding to that specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on, where the medicinal product for which the marketing authorisation is submitted in support of the application for a special protection certificate contains not only that combination of the two active ingredients but also other active ingredients.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — J. C. van Ardennen v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-435/10) (1)

(Directive 80/987/EEC - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Insolvency benefit - Payment subject to registration as a job-seeker)

(2012/C 25/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. C. van Ardennen

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Articles 4, 5 and 10 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Extent of the guarantee offered by the guarantee institution — National legislation obliging employees to register immediately as job-seekers before they apply for payment of outstanding pay claims.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which obliges employees to register as job-seekers in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in order to fully assert their right to payment of outstanding wage claims, such as those in issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
1.

Declares that, by providing in Title IV of Administrative Instruction 3 A-9-06 No 105 of 23 June 2006 for an administrative concession derogating from a value added tax reverse charge scheme and necessitating, among other things, the designation of a tax representative by a seller or provider established outside of France, that the seller or provider identifies him or herself for value added tax purposes in France and the offsetting of deductible value added tax that he or she has paid against that which he or she has collected in the name and on behalf of his or her customers, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and, in particular, Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214 thereof;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Benjamin Wilkinson and Tracy Evans v Equity Claims Limited

(Case C-442/10) (1)

(Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4) and Article 2(1) - Third parties victims of an accident - Express or implied authorisation to drive - Directive 90/232/EEC - First subparagraph of Article 1 - Directive 2009/103/EC - Articles 10, 12(1) and 13(1) - Victim of a road traffic accident who was a passenger in a vehicle in respect of which he was insured to drive - Vehicle driven by a person not insured under the insurance policy - Insured victim not deprived of insurance cover)

2012/C 32/17

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Churchill Insurance Company Limited, Tracy Evans

Defendants: Benjamin Wilkinson, Equity Claims Limited

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16th September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) — Road accident victim who, at the time of the accident, is a passenger in the vehicle which he is insured to drive but which is being driven by an uninsured driver whom the victim had authorised to drive — Provisions of national law excluding the victim from being covered by the insurance

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1, first subparagraph, of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Article 2(1) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, must be interpreted as precluding national rules the effect of which is to omit automatically the requirement that the insurer compensate a passenger who is a victim of a road traffic accident when that accident was caused by a driver who was not insured under the insurance policy and when the victim, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident, was insured to drive the vehicle himself but who had given permission to the driver to drive it.

2. The answer to the first question is not different depending on whether the insured victim was aware that the person to whom he gave permission to drive the vehicle was not insured to do so, whether he believed that the driver was insured or whether or not he had turned his mind to that question.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
1.

Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, and Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property and with Article 2 of Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, must be interpreted as meaning that rights to exploit a cinematographic work such as those at issue in the main proceedings (reproduction right, satellite broadcasting right and any other right of communication to the public through the making available to the public) vest by operation of law, directly and originally, in the principal director. Consequently, those provisions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allocates those exploitation rights by operation of law exclusively to the producer of the work in question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-250/10) (1)

(Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(b) - Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation - Fuel provided by a person chartering out an aircraft used by charterers of the aircraft for their flights for purposes other than the supply of air services for consideration)

2012/C 49/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Scope of the exemption envisaged for energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation — Exemption of fuel provided by an entity — which is not an airline — leasing or chartering out an aircraft used by lessees of the aircraft for their flights for commercial purposes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption on energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than in private pleasure-flying provided for under that provision cannot apply in the case of a company, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, where it leases or charters out an aircraft belonging to it with the fuel to undertakings whose air navigation operations are not directly used for the supply, by those undertakings, of air services for consideration.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
2.

Those combined provisions must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a host Member State which allows that State to refuse to recognise, within its territory, a driving licence issued in another Member State in the case where it is established, on the basis of indisputable information emanating from the issuing Member State, that the holder of the driving licence did not satisfy the normal residence condition laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 91/439 and in Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2006/126 at the time when that licence was issued. In that respect, the fact that that information is conveyed, not directly but only indirectly, by the issuing Member State to the competent authorities of the host Member State in the form of a notification by third parties, is not, in itself, such as to preclude that information from being capable of being regarded as emanating from the issuing Member State, in so far as it comes from an authority of that Member State. It is a matter for the referring court to determine whether information obtained in circumstances such as those in the dispute in the main proceedings can be classified as information emanating from the issuing Member State and, if necessary, to evaluate that information and to assess, taking into account all the facts of the dispute before it, whether it constitutes indisputable information demonstrating that the holder of the licence was not normally resident in the territory of that latter State at the time when his driving licence was issued.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-355/10) (1)

(Schengen Borders Code - Decision 2010/252/EU - Surveillance of the sea external borders - Introduction of additional rules governing border surveillance - Commission’s implementing powers - Scope - Application for annulment)

(2012/C 331/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean, A. Auersperger Matić and K. Bradley, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Z. Kupčová and R. Szostak, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. O’Reilly and M. Wilderspin, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2010/252/EU of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (OJ 2010 L 111, p. 20) — Additional measures governing surveillance — Introduction of rules exceeding the extent of the Council’s implementing powers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2010/252/EU of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union;

2. Maintains the effects of Decision 2010/252 until the entry into force of new rules within a reasonable time;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.