ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom) — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

(Case C-591/10) (1)

(Second and Sixth VAT Directives - Input tax - Refund of excess - Payment of interest - Procedures)

2012/C 295/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others

Defendant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 8 and Annex A, point 13, of the Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1967 p.16) — Interpretation of Article 11C(1) 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) — Repayment of overpaid input tax — Interest rate applicable

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as requiring that a taxable person who has overpaid value added tax which was collected by the Member State contrary to the requirements of European Union legislation on value added tax has a right to reimbursement of the tax collected in breach of European Union law and to the payment of interest on the amount of the latter. It is for national law to determine, in compliance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, whether the principal sum must bear ‘simple interest’, ‘compound interest’ or another type of interest.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Josef Geistbeck, Thomas Geistbeck v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

(Case C-509/10) (1)

(Intellectual and industrial property - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - ‘Farmer’s privilege’ - Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ - Compensation for damage suffered - Infringement)

2012/C 287/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Josef Geistbeck, Thomas Geistbeck

Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 14(3) and Article 94(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1) and of Articles 5 and 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14) — Community plant variety rights — Infringement — Obligation to pay the holder of such rights reasonable compensation and to compensate him for damage — Criteria for determining the damage and reasonable compensation

Operative part of the judgment

1. In order to determine the ‘reasonable compensation’ payable, under Article 94(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, by a farmer who has used the propagating material of a protected variety obtained through planting and has not fulfilled his obligations under Article 14(3) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998, it is appropriate to base the calculation on the amount of the fee payable for the licensed production of propagating material of protected varieties of the plant species concerned in the same area.

2. The payment of compensation for costs incurred for monitoring compliance with the rights of the plant variety holder cannot enter into the calculation of the ‘reasonable compensation’ provided for under Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
2.

In so far as the restriction to the freedom to provide services arising from national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, results from the obligation to withhold tax at source, in that it entails an additional administrative burden and related liability risks, that restriction can be justified by the need to ensure the effective collection of tax and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose, even in the light of the opportunities for mutual assistance in the recovery of taxes presented by Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001. The subsequent renunciation of the withholding tax at issue in the main proceedings cannot prejudice either its appropriateness to achieve the aim pursued or its proportionality, both of which must be assessed solely in the light of the objectives pursued.
4.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, and in particular Article 1(5) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation such as Law 3481/2006, adopted by the Greek Parliament on 2 August 2006, which approves a project for the partial diversion of the waters of a river such as that at issue in the main proceedings on the basis of an environmental impact assessment for that project which had served as the basis for an administrative decision adopted on the conclusion of a procedure which complied with the obligations in terms of public information and participation laid down by that directive, even where that decision was annulled by court order, provided that that legislation constitutes a specific legislative act, so that the objectives of that directive can be achieved through the legislative process. It is for the national court to determine whether those two conditions have been complied with.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-473/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Development of the Community’s railways - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure - Directives 91/440/EEC and 2001/14/EC - Incomplete transposition)

2013/C 114/04

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, B. Simon and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland, (represented by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and M. Laszuk, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and Articles 4(2), 6(1) and (2), 7(3), 11 and 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 (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(1) and (2) and Article 7(3) 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, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, Hungary has failed to comply with its obligations under those provisions;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission and Hungary to bear their own costs;

4. Orders the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co. Ltd, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas

(Case C-247/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 - Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(b) - Market economy treatment - Article 9(6) - Individual treatment - Article 17(3) - Sampling - Article 20(5) - Rights of the defence)

2013/C 9/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and R. Szostak, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co. Ltd, European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents), Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747, by which the General Court dismissed an action for the annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council;

2. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam in so far as it concerns Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd. both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs, both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-121/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)

2014/C 45/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/1017/EU of 22 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 348, p. 55) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-512/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 91/440/EEC - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14 - Continued absence of financial balance - Articles 6(1) and 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440 - Absence of incentives for infrastructure managers - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 - Calculation of the minimum access charge)

2013/C 225/03

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Herrmann, Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, K. Bożekowska-Zawisza and M. Laszuk, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: name Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and with Articles 4(2), 6(1) to (3), 7(3), 8(1) and 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 (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt incentives to encourage the railway infrastructure manager to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and the level of access charges, and by permitting the inclusion, in the calculation of charges levied for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities, of costs which cannot be regarded as costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6(2) and 7(3), respectively, 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, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Waypoint Aviation SA v État belge — SPF Finances

(Case C-9/11) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Tax legislation - Tax credit on income from loans granted for the acquisition of assets used on national territory - Exclusion of assets for which the right to use is transferred to a third party established in another Member State)

2011/C 355/11

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Waypoint Aviation SA

Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 10 EC (Article 4(3) EU) and Article 49 EC (Article 56 TFEU) — National legislation which grants a tax credit to the recipients of income from debt-claims or loans granted to a national coordination centre — Right to use assets acquired using borrowed funds by a resident company in the same group as that to which the coordination centre belongs — Exclusion of non-resident companies in the same group — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision of a Member State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the grant of a tax credit on income from loans provided to certain companies for the acquisition of new assets used on the national territory subject to the condition that the right to use the asset is not transferred, by the company which acquired it through the loan conferring entitlement to the tax credit or by any other company in the same group, to third parties other than members of that group established in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Pro-Braine ASBL and Others v The Commune of Braine-le-Château

(Case C-121/11) (1)

(Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfill of waste - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Decision relating to the carrying on of operations at an authorised landfill site, in the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment - Concept of ‘consent’)

2012/C 165/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pro-Braine ASBL, Michel Bernard, Charlotte de Lantsheere

Defendant: The Commune of Braine-le-Château

Intervener: Veolia es treatment SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 14(b) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) and of Article 1(2) 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) — Decision relating to the carrying on of operations at an authorised landfill site, in the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment — Concept of ‘consent’ — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

The definitive decision relating to the carrying on of operations at an existing landfill site, taken on the basis of a conditioning plan, pursuant to Article 14(b) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, does not constitute a ‘consent’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) 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, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, unless that decision authorises a change to or extension of that installation or site, through works or interventions involving alterations to its physical aspect, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment within the meaning of point 13 of Annex II to Directive 85/337, and thus constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that Directive.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — LG Electronics, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-88/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word sign ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ - Refusal to register - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Descriptive character - Consideration of new evidence by the General Court - Distortion of the facts and evidence)

(2012/C 25/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by: J. Blanchard, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM dismissing the appellant’s action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 397/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign KOMPRESSOR PLUS as a Community trade mark — Descriptive nature of the mark — Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Consideration of new facts by the General Court — Distortion of the evidence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders LG Electronics Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-98/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon)

2012/C 200/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (represented by: R. Lange, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (T-336/08), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2008, rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Examiner to refuse registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon as a Community trade mark for some goods in Class 30 — Distinctive character of the mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.