ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Does the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State, which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 and which may constitute an internal tax on goods coming from other Member States, account being taken of the fact that the tax is not levied upon the re-registering in Romania of a motor vehicle which has the same characteristics as an imported second-hand motor vehicle?
2.

If the first question must be answered in the affirmative: is a final settlement tax such as the one at issue, which is applied, without deferment and without the possibility of taking subsequent decreases in value into consideration, to the capital gains relating to the assets of the company which were transferred from the exit Member State to the host Member State, as assessed at the time of the transfer of the company seat, contrary to Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU), in the sense that such a final settlement tax cannot be justified by the necessity of allocating the power to impose taxes between the Member States?
3.

If, on the basis of the answers to questions 1 and 2, it is to be assumed that the product in question or a corresponding part thereof is bioethanol, under which heading of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) in 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 (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991 (2), is the product in question then to be classified: 3.1 Are the provisions of Chapter 22 of the CN and specifically heading 2207 to be interpreted as meaning that they cover bioethanol? 3.2 If the answer to question 3.1 is in the affirmative, should then the classification of bioethanol and specifically the product in question take account of whether the product has been denatured (in accordance with the procedure set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 of 22 November 1993 on the mutual recognition of procedures for the complete denaturing of alcohol for the purposes of exemption from excise duty or in accordance with other admissible procedures) (3)? 3.3 If the answer to question 3.2 is in the affirmative, are then the provisions of the CN concerning heading 2207 to be interpreted as meaning that only denatured bioethanol is to be classified under code 2207 20 000 of the CN? 3.4 If the answer to question 3.3 is in the affirmative, are then the provisions of the CN concerning heading 2207 to be interpreted as meaning that bioethanol that has not been denatured is to be classified under code 2207 10 000 of the CN? 3.5 If the answer to question 3.1 is in the affirmative and the answer to question 3.2 is in the negative, under which of the two subheadings — 2207 10 000 or 2207 20 000 — is then the product in question to be classified? 3.6 If the answer to question 3.1 is in the negative, is bioethanol then to be classified under one of the CN codes stated in Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (4), and under which one?
3.

provides that the licence may lapse, including where the licence holder carries on, even indirectly, cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence, with the consequent forfeiture of appreciable guarantee deposits?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/18

Action brought on 12 October 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-490/10)

()

2011/C 13/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, J. Rodrigues, L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96; (1)

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the European Parliament seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 by which the Council established a common framework for the notification to the Commission of information on investment projects in energy infrastructure. The regulation was adopted by the Council on the dual legal basis of Articles 337 TFEU and 187 EA. According to the Parliament, the Council’s choice of legal basis is erroneous because the measures covered by the contested regulation fall within the energy responsibilities of the Union which are specifically governed by Article 194 TFEU. Those measures should, therefore, have been adopted on the basis of Article 194(2) TFEU in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure laid down in that provision, instead of on the basis of Article 337 TFEU, which does not provide for any involvement by the Parliament. In addition, the Parliament takes the view that it was not necessary to rely also on Article 187 EA in order to adopt the measures at issue.

(1) OJ 2010 L 180, p. 7.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2010 — Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet v État belge — SPF Finances

(Case C-538/10)

2011/C 38/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance, Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet

Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances

Question referred

Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the [Treaty on European Union, as amended by the] Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously contained in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude a national law, such as that of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the [Constitutional Court], (1) from requiring prior recourse to the Constitutional Court by a national court which finds that a taxpaying citizen is deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated into Community law, by another national law, namely Article 2 of the Law of 24 July 2008, without that national court being able immediately to ensure the direct applicability of Community law to the dispute before it or being able to scrutinise compliance with that convention when the Constitutional Court has recognised the compatibility of the national law with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the [Belgian] Constitution?

(1) Moniteur belge, 31 July 2009, p. 51617.
4.

In the case of an infringement of general principles of the Union, such as the prohibition of discrimination and the requirement of legal certainty, when there exists national implementing legislation permitting the court to ‘order the cessation of the damaging conduct and adopt any other suitable measure, according to the circumstances and the effects of the discrimination’, requiring the court to ‘order the discriminatory conduct, behaviour or action, if still subsisting, to cease and its effects to be eliminated’ and permitting the court to order ‘a plan for the suppression of the discrimination found to exist, in order to prevent its repetition, within the period fixed in the measure’, must Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC, in so far as it provides that sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, be interpreted as including, in discrimination found to exist and effects to be eliminated, and in order to avoid unjustified reverse discrimination, all infringements affecting the persons discriminated against, even if they do not form part of the dispute?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/12

Action brought on 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-610/10)

2011/C 72/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aids in Spain which the central and several autonomous governments have granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless steel, and small electric appliances (OJ 1991 L 5, p. 18; ‘Decision 91/1’) and under Article 260 TFEU, since it has failed to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 2002 in Case C-499/99 Commission v Spain [2002] ECR I-603 (‘the 2002 judgment’), concerning the Kingdom of Spain’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Decision 91/1;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 131 136 for each day of delay in complying with the 2002 judgment, running from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present proceedings until the day on which the 2002 judgment is fully complied with;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to make a lump sum payment to the Commission, to be calculated by multiplying a daily amount of EUR 14 343 by the number of days over which the infringement continued, from the date of the 2002 judgment until: — the date on which the Kingdom of Spain recovered the aids declared unlawful by Decision 91/1, if the Court of Justice finds that those aids have in fact been recovered before judgment is delivered in the present proceedings; — the date of judgment in the present proceedings, if the 2002 judgment has not been fully complied with by that date.

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The measures adopted by Spain have not resulted in immediate enforcement of the 2002 judgment or Decision 91/1; nor have they resulted in full and immediate recovery of the unlawful and incompatible aid.

According to settled case-law, the only defence available to a Member State which has failed to fulfil its obligations is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it properly to implement the decision.

In the present case, in the course of an extremely lengthy correspondence between the Commission’s staff and the Spanish authorities concerning the measures adopted for the purpose of complying with Decision 91/1, the Spanish authorities have not claimed that it is absolutely impossible to enforce that decision and have merely referred to imprecise internal difficulties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče (Slovenia) lodged on 21 December 2010 — Pelati d.o.o. v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-603/10)

2011/C 80/22

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Upravno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pelati d.o.o.

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Question referred

Must Article 11 of Council Directive 90/434/EEC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of domestic law in accordance with which the Republic of Slovenia, as a Member State, makes tax relief for a commercial company wishing to effect a division (splitting off of part of the company and formation of a new company) subject to the presentation within time-limits of a request for the issuing of authorisation of the grant of tax advantages, consequent upon the division if the conditions laid down have been satisfied, or in accordance with which the person liable to pay the tax automatically loses, because the time-limit has been passed, the tax advantages provided for under domestic law?

(1) Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1.
1.

Are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as requiring the compensation provided for in Article 7 to be paid to passengers whose flights are subject to delay within the meaning of Article 6, and if so in what circumstances?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/13

Action brought on 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-614/10)

2011/C 72/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC because the legal situation in Austria of a Data Protection Commission created as data protection inspection body does not fulfil the criterion of complete independence.

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the opinion that the independence of the Data Protection Commission as inspection body for the control of data protection regulations in Austria is not guaranteed.

The Data Protection Commission is organisationally closely connected with the Federal Chancellor’s Office (Bundeskanzleramt). The latter supervises the employees of the Data Protection Commission and is also responsible for that commission’s material provisions. Furthermore, an administrative officer of the Federal Chancellor’s Office is responsible for the management of the Data Protection Commission, who is also for the duration of his duties bound by the directions of his supervisor and subject to that supervision. That situation leads to clear conflicts of loyalty and interests.

Moreover, the Federal Chancellor (Bundeskanzler), who like other public posts is subject to the control of the Data Protection Commission, has a comprehensive right to supervise and instruct that commission. As a result, it is possible for the Federal Chancellor at any time and without any concrete ground to inform himself about all aspects of the management of the Data Protection Commission. There exists thereby the risk that that right could be used in order to exercise political influence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/12

Appeal brought on 10 November 2010 by Mariyus Noko Ngele against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 10 December 2009 in Case T-390/09 Mariyus Noko Ngele v European Commission

(Case C-525/10 P)

2011/C 139/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Mariyus Noko Ngele (represented by: F. Sabakunzi, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 10 March 2011, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) declared the appeal inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/8

Appeal brought on 23 December 2010 by Dieter C. Umbach against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 Dieter C. Umbach v European Commission

(Case C-609/10 P)

2011/C 89/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Dieter C. Umbach (represented by: M. Stephani, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annulment of point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 Umbach v European Commission.

— Annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 2 September 2008, reference: SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 6991.

— Order that the European Commission pay the costs of the case at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, Mr Umbach appeals the decision of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 and seeks the setting aside of that judgment, by which he was refused full access to documents connected with a TACIS contract which concern him.

The appellant is of the opinion that on the basis of obligations under primary law, in particular Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, direct access to documents which affect him must be permitted, in particular where a claim for payment is brought against him by the European Commission before a Member State court and he requires access to documents of the European Commission for the purposes of defending those proceedings.

The European Commission on the other hand contends that only Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable and that it is thereby entitled to grant only limited access or to refuse such access.

With regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the appellant claims that, to the extent that that regulation is applicable, the European Commission’s discretion concerning his fundamental rights is limited, leading to the same result under secondary law as is reached under the primary provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights referred to.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/15

Appeal brought on 11 January 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-14/11 P)

2011/C 80/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

— set aside point 1 of the operative part of the contested judgment;

— dismiss the action before the General Court in its entirety;

— require TCLT to bear the costs of these proceedings and to require the three Applicants to bear the entirety of the cots of the proceedings in first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

1. The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment and disregarded a well established line of case law according to which the liability of each company must be assessed on its own merits.

2. The General Court erred in law in considering that the Commission's treatment of certain parent companies determined the legal standard for holding other parent companies liable, even if such standard went beyond what the case law requires.

3. By preventing the Commission from raising arguments in response to claims of discrimination, the General Court breached the Commission's rights to an adversarial procedure and misinterpreted the duty to state reasons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 February 2011 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

(Case C-48/11)

2011/C 103/30

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Defendant: A Oy

Question referred

Is an exchange of shares in which a Finnish limited company transfers to a Norwegian company (in the corporate form of an aksjeselskap [public limited company]) shares of a company which it owns and receives as consideration shares issued by the Norwegian company to be treated in taxation (taking account of Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement) neutrally in the same way as if the exchange of shares were between domestic companies or companies with their seat in Member States of the European Union?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/6

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Benevento (Provincial Tax Court, Benevento) lodged on 14 January 2011 — Volturno Trasporti SAS di Santoro Nino & C. v Camera di Commercio Benevento; Concessione Equitalia Sestri S.P.A.

(Case C-21/11)

2011/C 95/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Benevento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Volturno Trasporti SAS di Santoro Nino & C.

Defendants: Camera di Commercio Benevento; Concessione Equitalia Sestri S.P.A.

Question referred

Is the Italian Chamber of Commerce fee, in particular, Article 18(3) of Italian Law No 580 of 29 December 1993 on the reorganisation of the Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Craftsmanship and Agriculture, as amended and supplemented, compatible with Council Directive No 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969, in particular, with Articles 10(c) and 12(e)?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel de Nancy (France) lodged on 9 February 2011 — Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumaux SAS

(Case C-59/11)

2011/C 120/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’Appel de Nancy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association Kokopelli

Defendant: Graines Baumaux SAS

Question referred

Are Council Directives 98/95/EC (1), 2002/53/EC (2) and 2002/55/EC (3) and Commission Directive 2009/145 (4) valid in the light of the following fundamental rights and principles of the European Union, namely, freedom to pursue an economic activity, proportionality, equal treatment or non-discrimination and the free movement of goods, and also in the light of the commitments arising from the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, particularly in so far as they impose restrictions on the production and marketing of old seed and plants?

(1) Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect of the consolidation of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources, Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 1999 L 25, p.1).

(2) Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 1).

(3) Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 33).

(4) Commission Directive 2009/145/EC of 26 November 2009 providing for certain derogations, for acceptance of vegetable landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions and for marketing of seed of those landraces and varieties (OJ 1999 L 312, p. 44).