ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Fatorie SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

(Case C-424/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Reverse charge procedure - Right to deduct - Payment of the tax to the service supplier - Omission of mandatory particulars - Payment of VAT not due - Loss of the right to deduct - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Principle of legal certainty)

2014/C 93/17

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Fatorie SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Oradea — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Loss of the right to deduct VAT on the grounds that there was no mention in the invoice of the application of the reverse charge regime — Principle of legal certainty — Decision ordering payment of the amount of VAT wrongly deducted and of interest and of default penalties after an irrevocable decision recognising the right to deduct — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Payment of the VAT incorrectly indicated in an invoice by a third party — No steps taken by the tax authorities with a view to correction of the invoice which it is impossible to put in order ex post.

Operative part of the judgment

1. In a transaction subject to the reverse charge regime, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude the recipient of the services from being deprived of the right to deduct the value added tax which he paid when that tax was not due to the service supplier on the basis of an incorrectly drawn up invoice, even where the correction of that error is impossible because that supplier is insolvent;

2. The principle of legal certainty does not preclude an administrative practice of the national tax authorities whereby, within a limitation period, they revoke a decision by which they granted the taxable person the right to deduct value added tax and then, following a fresh investigation, order him to pay that tax together with default interest.

(1) OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Siegfried Pohl v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-429/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 45 TFEU - Directive 2000/78/EC - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - Determination of the reference date for the purposes of advancement on the salary scale - Limitation period - Principle of effectiveness)

2014/C 85/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Siegfried Pohl

Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 6(3) TEU, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 45 TFEU and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Temporal scope — Period before accession — Remuneration of employees in the rail transport sector — National legislation and collective agreement excluding the taking into account of periods of employment completed before reaching the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration — Taking into account of half of the employee’s periods of employment completed after reaching the age of 18, except in the case of professional experience acquired with a ‘quasi-public’ national undertaking or with the national railway company — Limitation period.

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law, and, in particular, the principle of effectiveness, does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, making the right of an employee to seek a reassessment of the periods of service which must be taken into account in order to fix the reference date for the purposes of advancement subject to a 30-year limitation period, which starts to run from the conclusion of the agreement on the basis of which that reference date was fixed or from the classification in an incorrect salary scale.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2011 in Case T-202/10 Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission in so far as it declares inadmissible the action brought by Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest and Stichting Woonstede for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid No E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — The Netherlands — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations, in so far as that decision concerns aid measure E 2/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-152/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2001/14/EEC - Development of the Union’s railways - Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) - Possibility of levying a mark-up on charges - Costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service)

2014/C 93/06

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Vasileva and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Ivanov, D. Drambozova and E. Petranova, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 8(1) 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. 1) — Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure — Notion of ‘cost directly incurred as a result of operating the train service’ — Income exceeding the costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service — Conditions for the application of Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by allowing to be included in the calculation of charges incurred for all of the minimum services and for access by the network to the service infrastructure costs, namely staff remuneration and social security contributions, which cannot be considered to be directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under 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;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

(1) OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding

(Case C-435/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(2)(b) and (5) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Reproduction for private use - Lawful nature of the origin of the copy - Directive 2004/48/EC - Scope))

2014/C 175/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ACI Adam BV, Alpha International BV, AVC Nederland BV, B.A.S. Computers & Componenten BV, Despec BV, Dexxon Data Media and Storage BV, Fuji Magnetics Nederland, Imation Europe BV, Maxell Benelux BV, Philips Consumer Electronics BV, Sony Benelux BV, Verbatim GmbH

Defendants: Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands — Interpretation of Article 5(2) and (5) 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 (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) and of Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Legal costs — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

1) EU law, in particular Article 5(2)(b) 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, read in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that article, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not distinguish the situation in which the source from which a reproduction for private use is made is lawful from that in which that source is unlawful.

2) Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings, such as those in the main proceedings, in which those liable for payment of the fair compensation bring an action before the referring court for a ruling against the body responsible for collecting that remuneration and distributing it to copyright holders, which defends that action.

(1) OJ C 399, 22. 12. 2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA v Regione Campania (C-516/12 to C-518/12), Provincia di Napoli (C-516/12 and C-518/12)

(Joined Cases C-516/12 to C-518/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1191/69 - Public passenger transport services - Article 4 - Application for termination of public service obligation - Article 6 - Right to compensation in respect of the financial burdens resulting from the performance of a public service obligation))

2014/C 159/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA

Defendants: Regione Campania (C-516/12 to C-518/12), Provincia di Napoli (C-516/12 and C-518/12)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1) — The right of private undertakings to compensation for the financial burdens arising from a public service obligation — Transport undertaking not having submitted to the competent authorities an application for termination of a public service obligation imposing on it an economic disadvantage — Obligation not forming part of the public service missions that the Member States are required to terminate

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 must be interpreted as meaning that, for public service obligations that came into existence before that regulation entered into force, acquisition of a right to compensation in respect of the financial burdens resulting from the performance of such an obligation is subject to the submission of an application for termination of that obligation by the undertaking concerned and to a decision to maintain the obligation or to terminate it at the end of a specified period being made by the competent authorities. By contrast, as regards public service obligations that came into existence after that date, acquisition of such a right to compensation is not subject to those conditions.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) v European Commission

(Case C-35/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags market - Single and continuous infringement))

2014/C 253/04

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) (represented by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez, M. Troncoso Ferrer and E. Abril Fernández, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-76/06 ASPLA v Commission dismissing an application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on ASPLA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) to pay the costs of this appeal.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 May 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-43/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Directive 2011/82/EU - Cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences - Choice of legal basis - Article 87(2)(a) TFEU - Article 91 TFEU - Maintenance of the effects of the directive in case of annulment))

2014/C 202/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler and A. Troupiotis and by K. Zejdová, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, T. Materne, acting as Agents, and by S. Rodrigues and F. Libert, avocats, Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent, and by N. Travers, Barrister-at-Law), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and by K. Szíjjártó and K. Molnár, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Stege, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by J. Maurici and J. Holmes, Barristers)

Re:

Action for annulment — Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences (OJ 2011 L 288, p. 1) — Choice of legal basis — Replacement of the proposed legal basis in the field of common transport policy by another, in the field of police cooperation — Objectives of improving road safety — Maintaining the effects of the directive in the event of annulment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences;

2. Maintains the effects of Directive 2011/82 until the entry into force within a reasonable period of time — which may not exceed 12 months as from the date of delivery of the present judgment — of a new directive based on the correct legal basis, that is to say, Article 91(1)(c) TFEU;

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

4. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, Ireland, Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/4

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici v Comune di Milano

(Case C-358/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Contracts falling below the threshold provided for in Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Principle of proportionality - Conditions for exclusion from a tender procedure - Criteria for qualitative selection relating to the personal situation of the tenderer - Obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions - Definition of serious infringement - Difference between the sums owed and those paid which exceeds EUR 100 and is greater than 5 % of the sums owed))

2014/C 315/05

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici

Defendant: Comune di Milano

Intervener: Pascolo Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, with regard to public works contracts the value of which is below the threshold laid down in Article 7(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009, requires the contracting authorities to exclude from the award procedure for such a contract a tenderer who has committed an infringement relating to social security contributions where the difference between the sums owed and those paid exceeds EUR 100 and is greater than 5 % of the sums owed.

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

(Case C-461/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13(B)(d)(3) and (5) - ‘Other securities’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ - Sales promotion scheme - Discount card - Taxable amount))

2014/C 282/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Granton Advertising BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(B)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the sale of a discount card, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute a transaction in ‘other securities’ or concerning ‘other negotiable instruments’, within the meaning, respectively, of paragraphs 5 and 3 of that provision, which refers to certain transactions which the Member States must exempt from value added tax.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — MasterCard Inc., MasterCard International Inc., MasterCard Europe SPRL v European Commission, Banco Santander SA, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, HSBC Bank plc, Bank of Scotland plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc, MBNA Europe Bank Ltd, British Retail Consortium, EuroCommerce AISBL, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-382/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cross-appeals - Admissibility - Article 81 EC - Open system of payment by debit, charge and credit cards - Multilateral fallback interchange fees - Association of undertakings - Restrictions of competition by effect - Standard of judicial review - Concept of ‘ancillary restriction’ - Objectively necessary and proportionate nature - Appropriate ‘counterfactual hypotheses’ - Two-sided systems - Treatment of annexes to the application at first instance))

2014/C 409/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: MasterCard Inc., MasterCard International Inc., MasterCard Europe SPRL (represented by: E. Barbier de la Serre, V. Brophy and B. Amory, avocats, and T. Sharpe QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents), Banco Santander SA, Royal Bank of Scotland plc (represented by: D. Liddell, Solicitor, and M. Hoskins, Barrister), HSBC Bank plc (represented by: R. Thompson QC), Bank of Scotland plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc (represented by: K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos and S. Wisking, Solicitors, and J. Flynn QC), MBNA Europe Bank Ltd (represented by: A. Davis, Solicitor), British Retail Consortium (represented by: R. Marchini, advocate, and A. Robertson, Barrister), EuroCommerce AISBL (represented by: J. Stuyck, advocaat), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and C. Murrell, acting as Agents, J. Turner QC and J. Holmes, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeals;

2) Orders MasterCard Inc., MasterCard International Inc. and MasterCard Europe SPRL to bear their own costs relating to the main appeal and the cross-appeals, and to pay the European Commission’s costs relating to the main appeal;

3) Orders Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Bank of Scotland plc and Lloyds TSB Bank plc to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission’s costs relating to their respective cross-appeals;

4) Orders HSBC Bank plc, MBNA Europe Bank Ltd, British Retail Consortium, EuroCommerce AISBL and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.