ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
(b)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 (2) of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines to be interpreted as meaning that they also cover the compact fluorescent lamps with a twilight switch imported by the claimant and described in greater detail in the order?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 15 February 2012 — Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd, Savers Health and Beauty Ltd, Walton Container Terminal Ltd, AS Watson card Services (UK) Ltd, Hutchison Whampoa (Europe) Ltd, Kruidvat UK Ltd, Superdrug Stores plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-80/12)

2012/C 184/02

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd, Savers Health and Beauty Ltd, Walton Container Terminal Ldt, AS Watson card Services (UK) Ldt, Hutchison Whampoa (Europe) Ltd, Kruidvat UK Ldt, Superdrug Stores plc

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

1. In circumstances where: 1. The provisions of a Member State (such as the United Kingdom) provide for a company (‘a claimant company’) to claim group relief for the losses of a company that is owned by a consortium (‘a consortium company’) on the condition that a company that is a member of the same group of companies as the claimant company is also a member of the consortium (a ‘link company’), and 2. The parent company of the group of companies (not itself being the claimant company, the consortium company or the link company) is not a national of the United Kingdom or any other Member State, Do Arts. 49 and 54, TFEU preclude the requirement that the ‘link company’ be either resident in the United Kingdom or carrying on a trade in the United Kingdom through a permanent establishment situated there?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2012 — Danilo Tola v Ministero della Difesa

(Case C-4/12)

2012/C 80/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danilo Tola

Defendant: Ministero della Difesa

Following the withdrawal of the reference for a preliminary ruling on 5 January 2012, by order of 18 January 2012 the Court of Justice removed the case from the register.
1.

Must Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, providing as it does that ‘1. Member States may provide that the person liable for payment of VAT is the taxable person to whom any of the following supplies are made: … (g) the supply of immovable property sold by a judgment debtor in a compulsory sale procedure’, be interpreted, in court proceedings that are creditor proceedings initiated by a declaration as to the insolvency of that debtor, to the effect that it refers only to transfers which strictly reflect the fact that the proceedings are liquidation proceedings or that they have reached the phase of liquidation, with the result that the disposal of such immovable property must take place as a consequence of the liquidation of all the debtor’s assets, or, given that insolvency proceedings may end, among other possibilities, with the liquidation of the insolvent undertaking, does it also cover any transfers of immovable property carried out in the course of insolvency proceedings by a debtor declared insolvent?
—

declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to bring into force or to communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1, Article 2, Article 4(2), Article 5(2), (5), (6) and (8), Article 6(1), (2), (3), (9) and (10), Articles 7, 8 and 9, Article 11(4) and (5), Article 12, Article 13(5), Articles 15, 16 and 17, Article 18(1), (2), (4) and (5), Article 19(3), Articles 20 to 27, Article 28(4) and (6), Articles 32 to 35 and Annexes I to IX of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community; (1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/17

Appeal brought on 26 January 2012 by Saupiquet against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission

(Case C-37/12 P)

2012/C 89/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Saupiquet SAS (represented by: R. Ledru, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission;

— Grant in their entirety the forms of order sought in the present appeal and those sought at first instance by the undertaking Saupiquet;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant alleges, firstly, infringement by the General Court of the fundamental principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and, in consequence, of Articles 2 and 9 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Secondly, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, conferring power and, in particular, exclusive responsibility on the Union in respect of customs matters.

Thirdly, the appellant alleges infringement of Articles 247 and 247a of the Community Customs Code. (1)

Fourthly and lastly, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 7 of Council Regulation No 975/2003. (2)

In fact, contrary to the findings of the General Court, it follows from the combined application of the texts referred to above that the Commission must be held liable for the negative consequences of the closure of customs offices on Sundays in certain Member States and must take the measures necessary to remedy those consequences.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 of 5 June 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN codes 1604 14 11, 1604 14 18 and 1604 20 70 (OJ 2003 L 141, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Badajoz, Spain) lodged on 23 January 2012 — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba S.A., Automóviles Citroen España S.A.

(Case C-32/12)

2012/C 98/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia, Badajoz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soledad Duarte Hueros

Defendant: Autociba S.A., Automóviles Citroen-2 España S.A.

Question referred

If a consumer, after failing to have the product brought into conformity — because, despite repeated requests, repair has not been carried out — seeks in legal proceedings only rescission of the contract, and such rescission is not available because the lack of conformity is minor, may the court of its own motion grant the consumer an appropriate price reduction?
2.

Second, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. The General Court erred in law in classifying the trade mark RESTORE as a purely descriptive indication. In order for Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 to be applied, the sign applied for must be able to serve, in trade, ‘to designate’ the kind etc. of goods. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the descriptive statement must be obvious from the sign applied for and the word itself must be descriptive. That is the case in this instance. The verb ‘restore’ does not in itself provide any indication of the kind, quality or intended purpose of the goods in respect of which registration is sought. The verb ‘restore’ acquires a descriptive function only in constructions that include one or more nouns (for example, ‘restore one’s health’). In so far as the assumption is made that a medical connection arises from the circumstances, that is insufficient, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, as that would require a transfer on the part of the public, in the sense of an effort of interpretation. A meaning associated with medicine can arise only if words such as ‘health’ are added, which are precisely what are missing in this case. Instead of examining the trade mark applied for (RESTORE) both the Board of Appeal and the General Court examined a trade mark RESTORE SOMEONE’S HEALTH.
1.

Is it compatible with Article 43 EC (or Article 49 TFEU) for a national provision to provide that, in the event of the contribution of partnership interests to a capital company, the business assets contributed must be assessed at their value as part of a going concern (and consequently, as a result of revealing undisclosed reserves, a capital gain arises for the transferor) where at the time of the non-cash contribution the Federal Republic of Germany has no right to tax in relation to the gain on the sale of the new company shares granted to the transferor in return for the contribution?
1.

Are the provisions of Articles 44 and 47 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that complex services relating to the storage of goods, which comprise admission of the goods to the warehouse, placing the goods on the appropriate storage shelves, storing the goods for the customer, issuing the goods, unloading and loading and, in the case of certain customers, repackaging materials supplied in collective packaging into individual sets, constitute services connected with immovable property which are to be taxed, in accordance with Article 47 of Directive 2006/112, at the place where the immovable property is located?
3.

In the alternative, with regard to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and with regard to the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 invalid if interpreted as also including among the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 968/2006 those facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it, given that it is clear that the objective of Regulation No 320/2006 is to reduce the production capacity of the sugar company and not to prevent the company from being able to operate in the sector of the mere marketing of the product, using sugar obtained relying on production quotas belonging to other facilities or businesses?
1.

Must Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2001/24/EC on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (1) be interpreted as meaning that reorganisation or winding-up measures in regard to a financial establishment, such as those under Icelandic Law No 44/2009 of 15 April 2009, are to be regarded as measures adopted by a administrative or judicial authority for the purposes of those articles?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — Leidseplein Beheer B.V. and Others, other parties: Red Bull GmbH and Others

(Case C-65/12)

2012/C 126/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:

Leidseplein Beheer B.V.

H.J.M de Vries

Defendants:

Red Bull GmbH

Red Bull Nederland B.V.

Question referred

Is Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that there can be due cause within the meaning of that provision also where the sign that is identical or similar to the trade mark with a reputation was already being used in good faith by the third party/parties concerned before that trade mark was filed?

(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).
2.

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: which homosexual activities fall within the scope of the Directive and, in the case of acts of persecution in respect of those activities and if the other requirements are met, can that lead to the granting of refugee status? That question encompasses the following subquestions: (a) Can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to conceal their orientation from everyone in their country of origin in order to avoid persecution? (b) If the previous question is to be answered in the negative, can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to exercise restraint, and if so, to what extent, when giving expression to that orientation in their country of origin, in order to avoid persecution? Moreover, can greater restraint be expected of homosexuals than of heterosexuals? (c) If, in that regard, a distinction can be made between forms of expression which relate to the core area of the orientation and forms of expression which do not, what should be understood to constitute the core area of the orientation and in what way can it be determined?
2.

Does proof of effecting a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 with respect to a specific invoice in connection with the exercise of the right under Article 178(a) of the Directive to deduct the tax actually paid and shown in that invoice presuppose that the person to whom the supply is made demonstrates the supplier’s rights of ownership where the supply relates to movable property specified according to its type and under the national law of the Member State the right of ownership of such property is transferred by delivery, although under that law the acquisition of the right of ownership of such property by bona fide possession acquired for consideration from a non owner is also permitted? Is a ‘supply of goods’ for the purposes of deduction of input tax within the meaning of the Directive to be regarded as proved where, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the person to whom the supply is made has effected a subsequent supply of the same goods (animals subject to compulsory identification) by exportation with the submission of a customs declaration and there is no evidence of rights of third parties in those goods?
1.

Is a national rule, such as that embodied in the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the market in electricity), as implemented by the Besluit (Decision) of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as amended by the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 25 February 2005 on the promotion of the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources, where — an obligation is imposed on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network, to submit a certain number of green certificates annually to the Regulatory Authority (Article 23 of the aforementioned Decreet); — an administrative fine is imposed by the Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG) on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network when the supplier has not submitted a sufficient number of green certificates to fulfil a quota obligation which has been imposed in respect of green certificates (Article 37(2) of the aforementioned Decreet); — it is expressly provided that guarantees of origin from other countries may be submitted under certain conditions in order to fulfil the quota obligation (Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as applicable in this case); — the Regulatory Authority cannot or will not take into account any guarantees of origin originating from Norway and Denmark/Sweden, and that being in the absence of implementing measures on the part of the Flemish Government, which has acknowledged the equality or equivalence of those certificates (Article 25 of the aforementioned Decreet and Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of 5 March 2004), without that equality or equivalence being investigated by the Regulatory Authority in concrete terms; — in fact, during the whole time that the Decreet of 17 July 2000 was in force, only certificates for the production of green energy generated in the Flemish Region were taken into account when ascertaining whether the quota obligation had been fulfilled, whereas for the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or transmission network there was no possibility whatsoever of demonstrating that the guarantees of origin from other Member States of the European Union met the condition of the existence of equal or equivalent guarantees regarding the granting of such certificates, compatible with Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 11 of the EEA Agreement and/or Article 36 of that Treaty and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?
2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, can that competent national authority define the product as a medicinal product observing only the procedures under the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC or is it necessary, prior to initiating procedures under the Medicinal Products Directive to define the product as a medicinal product, to follow the safeguard clause procedure in Article 8 of the Devices Directive or to comply with the provisions of Article 18 concerning an unduly affixed CE marking?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

(Case C-232/12)

2012/C 217/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fastweb SpA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

(1) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Călin Ion Plavoșin v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș

(Case C-250/12)

2012/C 243/12

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Călin Ion Plavoșin

Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș

Question referred

In the case where a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

(a) the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

(b) the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?

(1) Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
(b)

In support of the alternative form of order sought, the Appellant raises three pleas in law (i) When reviewing the Appellant's non-contestation of the facts submitted in accordance with the Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases of 1996, the General Court erred by failing to put an end to the breaches by the European Commission of the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as by not complying with its own obligation to state reasons. (ii) The General Court erred in law by failing to apply the principle of proportionality and legality when reviewing the amount for which the Appellant was held jointly and severally liable in the Contested Decision, thus failing to reduce this amount accordingly. (iii) The General Court infringed Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 41 and 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in not handing down a judgment within a reasonable time.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 29 February 2012 — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea

(Case C-108/12)

2012/C 151/29

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Vâlcea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Volksbank România SA

Defendants: Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea

Question referred

Can Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘price’, as referred to in that provision, cover the elements which make up the consideration to which a credit institution is entitled by virtue of a consumer credit agreement, that is to say, the annual percentage rate of charge under a consumer credit agreement (as defined in Directive 2008/48 (2) on credit agreements for consumers), formed in particular by the interest rate, whether fixed or variable, bank commissions, and the other fees included and defined in the agreement?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2) Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 1987 L 133, p. 66).
2.

Must a Member State which refuses, on the basis of inaccuracies in invoices, to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services not find that the invoices are then also too inaccurate to allow payment of the VAT? Consequently, is a Member State not required, in order to safeguard the principle of neutrality of VAT, to repay the VAT which has been paid to it to the companies which supplied the services thus disputed?
2.

Must Article 56 TFEU, concerning the freedom to provide services, be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service?