ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vicenza (Italy)) — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA

(Case C-87/10) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(b), first indent - Court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation on which the application is based - Sale of goods - Place of delivery - Contract containing the clause ‘Delivered Ex Works’)

2011/C 226/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Vicenza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Electrosteel Europe SA

Defendant: Edil Centro SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) 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) — Special jurisdiction — Meaning of ‘the place where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’ — Final destination of the goods covered by the contract or the place in which the seller is discharged of his obligation to deliver

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first indent of Article 5(1)(b) 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 meaning that, in the case of distance selling, the place where the goods were or should have been delivered pursuant to the contract must be determined on the basis of the provisions of that contract.

2. In order to verify whether the place of delivery is determined ‘under the contract’, the national court seised must take account of all the relevant terms and clauses of that contract which are capable of clearly identifying that place, including terms and clauses which are generally recognised and applied through the usages of international trade or commerce, such as the Incoterms drawn up by the International Chamber of Commerce in the version published in 2000.

3. If it is impossible to determine the place of delivery on that basis, without referring to the substantive law applicable to the contract, the place of delivery is the place where the physical transfer of the goods took place, as a result of which the purchaser obtained, or should have obtained, actual power of disposal over those goods at the final destination of the sales transaction.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg)) — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

(Case C-69/10) (1)

(Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - ‘Decision taken on (the) application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 - Application by a third country national for refugee status - Failure to provide reasons justifying the grant of international protection - Application rejected under an accelerated procedure - No remedy against the decision to deal with the application under an accelerated procedure - Right to effective judicial review)

2011/C 298/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brahim Samba Diouf

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13) — Application by a third country national, without a legal right of residence, for refugee status — Rejection of that application in a national accelerated procedure in the absence of grounds justifying the grant of international protection — Conformity with Community law of national legislation excluding any appeal against the decision to treat the application under the accelerated procedure — Right to effective judicial review

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction, Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and the principle of effective judicial protection, do not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which no separate action may be brought against the decision of the competent national authority to deal with an application for asylum under an accelerated procedure, provided that the reasons which led that authority to examine the merits of the application under such a procedure can in fact be subject to judicial review in the action which may be brought against the final decision rejecting the application — a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Tural Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-186/10) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol - Standstill clause - Freedom of establishment - Refusal of the application for further leave to remain from a Turkish national who had established a business in breach of the conditions of his leave to remain - Abuse of rights)

2011/C 269/22

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tural Oguz

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

In the presence of: Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Financial Protocol signed on 23 November 1970, annexed to the Agreement establishing the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and on measures to be taken for their entry into force (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 17) — Standstill rule — Scope — Prohibition on Member States from introducing new restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services — Turkish national who established a business in the United Kingdom after obtaining leave to remain subject to a condition that he should not engage in any business or profession without the consent of the Secretary of State — Refusal to grant further leave to remain on the ground of breach of the conditions of his previous leave to remain

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a Turkish national who, having leave to remain in a Member State on condition that he does not engage in any business or profession, nevertheless enters into self-employment in breach of that condition and later applies to the national authorities for further leave to remain on the basis of the business which he has meanwhile established.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Williams and Others v British Airways plc

(Case C-155/10) (1)

(Working conditions - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Right to annual leave - Airline pilots)

2011/C 319/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Williams and Others

Defendant: British Airways plc

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) and of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Scope of the obligations laid down by the directives as to the nature and level of allowances for paid annual leave — Extent of the Member States’ freedom to lay down the conditions therefor — Paid annual leave granted to airline pilots

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Clause 3 of the Agreement annexed to Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation, concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA), must be interpreted as meaning that an airline pilot is entitled, during his annual leave, not only to the maintenance of his basic salary, but also, first, to all the components intrinsically linked to the performance of the tasks which he is required to carry out under his contract of employment and in respect of which a monetary amount, included in the calculation of his total remuneration, is provided and, second, to all the elements relating to his personal and professional status as an airline pilot.

It is for the national court to assess whether the various components comprising that worker’s total remuneration meet those criteria.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya v Administración del Estado

(Case C-197/10) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Entitlements to payments from the national reserve - Conditions for granting - Farmers commencing an agricultural activity - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 319/13

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Intervening party: Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos — Iniciativa Rural del Estado Español

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 42(3) of Council Regulation No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EAFRD (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1) — Integrated administration and control system for certain support schemes — Single payment scheme — Fixing of the reference amount — Entitlement to the payment not granted in certain situations — Young farmers

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) by decision of 18 March 2010 is inadmissible because the question referred is hypothetical.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
1.

‘Cancellation’, as defined in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it does not refer only to the situation in which the aeroplane in question fails to take off at all, but also covers the case in which that aeroplane took off but, for whatever reason, was subsequently forced to return to the airport of departure where the passengers of the said aeroplane were transferred to other flights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

(Case C-187/10) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1), first indent - Turkish national - Residence permit - Family reunification - Separation of the partners - Withdrawal of the residence permit - Retroactive effect)

2011/C 340/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Baris Unal

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence of Turkish nationals — Residence permit granted to a Turkish national to allow him to live with his partner — Separation of the partners not notified to the competent authorities — Withdrawal of the residence permit

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as precluding the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there is no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurs after the expiry of the one-year period of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) — United Kingdom) — Deo Antoine Homawoo v GMF Assurances SA

(Case C-412/10) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Scope ratione temporis)

(2012/C 25/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deo Antoine Homawoo

Defendant: GMF Assurances SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Articles 15(c), 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40) and of Article 297 TFEU — Temporal scope — Scope of the law applicable to the facts giving rise to damage

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), read in conjunction with Article 297 TFEU, must be interpreted as requiring a national court to apply the Regulation only to events giving rise to damage occurring after 11 January 2009 and that the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought or the date on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised have no bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the Regulation.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)) — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-422/10) (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 25/24)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(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 certificate — Whether it is possible to issue a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient or combination of active ingredients if that active ingredient or combination of active ingredients is protected by a basic patent in force within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the regulation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(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 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 an active ingredient 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 supplementary protection certificate application contains not only that active ingredient but also other active ingredients.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret, Denmark) — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-505/10) (1)

(Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Exemption - Concept of ‘navigation’ - Fuel used for an excavator affixed to a vessel and operating independently of the vessel’s engine)

(2012/C 25/31)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Partrederiet Sea Fighter

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Art. 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) — Exemption for mineral oils used as fuel for the purposes of navigation — Concept of ‘for the purposes of navigation’ — Mineral oils used as fuel for an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but having its own separate motor and fuel tank and thus operating independently of the vessel’s propulsion motor.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that mineral oils supplied for use in an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but which, because it has its own separate motor and fuel tank, operates independently of the vessel’s propulsion engine, are not exempt from excise duties.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta SpA, incorporating Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura SpA v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-427/10) (1)

(VAT - Recovery of VAT paid but not due - National legislation under which actions may be brought for the recovery of sums paid but not due, before different courts and subject to different time-limits, depending on whether the claimant is the recipient of the services or their supplier - Possibility for the recipient to claim a VAT refund from the supplier after the expiry of the time-limits within which the supplier is able to bring an action against the tax authority - Principle of effectiveness)

2012/C 39/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta SpA, incorporating Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura SpA

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 17(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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) — Recovery of tax paid but not due — National legislation under which actions may be brought for recovery before different courts and subject to different time-limits, depending on whether the claimant is the recipient/client of the service on which VAT was paid (10 years) or the supplier/provider of that service (2 years) — Possibility for the recipient/client to claim reimbursement of the VAT from the supplier/provider after expiry of the period during which the latter may bring an action — Principles of tax neutrality, effectiveness and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness does not preclude national rules governing the recovery of sums paid but not due, under which the time-limits for a civil law action for recovery of sums paid but not due, brought by the recipient of services against the supplier, a taxable person for the purposes of VAT, are more generous than the specific time-limits for a fiscal law action for a tax refund, brought by the supplier against the tax authority, provided that it is possible for that taxable person effectively to claim reimbursement of the VAT from the tax authority. That condition is not satisfied where the application of such rules has the effect of totally depriving the taxable person of the right to obtain from the tax authority a refund of the VAT paid but not due, which the taxable person has himself had to pay back to the recipient of his services.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.