ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against International Jet Management GmbH

(Case C-628/11) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 18 TFEU - Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of nationality - Commercial flights from a third State to a Member State - Legislation of a Member State providing that European Union air carriers not having an operating licence issued by that State must obtain an authorisation for each flight from a third State))

2014/C 142/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig

Party in the main proceedings

International Jet Management GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig — Interpretation of Article 18 TFEU — Commercial flights from a third State to a Member State — Legislation of a Member State providing that air carriers not having an operating licence issued by that State must obtain an authorisation for each flight from a third State — Financial penalty imposed on a Community air carrier not complying with that legislation

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 18 TFEU, which enshrines the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, is applicable to a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a first Member State requires an air carrier holding an operating licence issued by a second Member State to obtain an authorisation to enter the airspace of the first Member State to operate private flights in non-scheduled traffic from a third country to that first Member State, although such an authorisation is not required for air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State.

2. Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a first Member State which requires, on pain of a fine, an air carrier holding an operating licence issued by a second Member State to obtain an authorisation to enter the airspace of the first Member State to operate private flights in non-scheduled traffic from a third country to that first Member State, although such an authorisation is not required for air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State, and which makes the grant of that authorisation subject to production of a declaration confirming that the air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State are either not willing to operate those flights or are prevented from operating them.

(1) OJ C 80, 17. 3. 2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Meliha Veli Mustafa v Direktor na fond ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut

(Case C-247/12) (1)

(Protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Directive 2002/74/EC - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Obligation to provide a guarantee for employees’ claims - Possibility of limiting the guarantee to claims arising before the entry of the decision to open the insolvency proceedings in the register of companies - Decision to open the insolvency proceedings - Effects - Continuation of the employer’s activity)

2013/C 164/11

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meliha Veli Mustafa

Defendant: Direktor na fond ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven administrativen sad — Interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Obligation on the Member States to provide for guarantees not only for employees’ salary claims existing at the time of the opening of the insolvency proceedings of the employer but also for claims that may arise at each stage of the insolvency proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not requiring the Member States to provide guarantees for employees’ claims at every stage of the insolvency proceedings of their employer. In particular, it does not preclude Member States from providing a guarantee only for employees’ claims arising before the entry of the decision to open insolvency proceedings in the register of companies, even though that decision does not order the termination of the employer’s activities.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/15

Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 27 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Thomas Pringle v Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General

(Case C-370/12) (1)

(Stability mechanism for the Member States whose currency is the euro - Decision 2011/199/EU - Amendment of Article 136 TFEU - Validity - Article 48(6) TEU - Simplified revision procedure - ESM Treaty - Economic and monetary policy - Competence of the Member States)

2013/C 26/27

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Pringle

Defendants: Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Validity of European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro (OJ 2011 L 91, p. 1) — Competences of the Union — Right of euro area Member States to conclude an international agreement such as the Treaty establishing the European stability mechanism

Operative part of the judgment

1. Examination of the first question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro.

2. Articles 4(3) TEU and 13 TEU, Articles 2(3) TFEU, 3(1)(c) and (2) TFEU, 119 TFEU to 123 TFEU and 125 TFEU to 127 TFEU, and the general principle of effective judicial protection do not preclude the conclusion between the Member States whose currency is the euro of an agreement such as the Treaty establishing the European stability mechanism between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Finland, concluded at Brussels on 2 February 2012, or the ratification of that treaty by those Member States.

3. The right of a Member State to conclude and ratify that Treaty is not subject to the entry into force of Decision 2011/199.

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/26

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-70/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for methacrylates - Duration of the infringement - Presumption of innocence - Statement of reasons - Unlimited jurisdiction - General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment - Proportionality of the fine)

2013/C 225/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH (represented by: F. Wijckmans and M. Visser, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2011 in Case T-208/06 Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission annulling in part Decision C(2006) 2098 final of the Commission of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), which concerned a complex of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices in the methacrylates industry consisting in agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements, exchanging information and participating in discussions to facilitate the infringement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH to pay the costs of these proceedings.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB

(Case C-91/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(b) and (c) - Hospital and medical care and closely related activities - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Services consisting in the performance of plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments - Interventions of a purely cosmetic nature based solely on the patient’s wishes)

2013/C 156/18

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: PFC Clinic AB

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Interpretation of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions for medical treatment and care services — Deduction of input tax — Provision of cosmetic and reconstructive surgery services — Whether account to be taken of the purpose of the operation or treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning:

— supplies of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments, fall within the concepts of ‘medical care’ and ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) where those services are intended to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect, maintain or restore human health;

— the subjective understanding that the person who undergoes plastic surgery or a cosmetic treatment has of it are not in themselves decisive in order to determine whether that intervention has a therapeutic purpose;

— the fact that services such as those at issue in the main proceedings are supplied or undertaken by a licensed member of the medical profession or that the purpose of such services is determined by such a professional may influence the assessment of whether interventions such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall within the concept of ‘medical care’ or ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112 respectively;

— in order to determine whether supplies of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings are exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 132(1)(b) or (c) of Directive 2006/112 all the requirements laid down in subparagraphs 1(b) or (c) thereof must be taken into account as well as the other relevant provisions in Title IX, Chapters 1 and 2, of that directive such as, as far as concerns Article 132(1)(b), Articles 131, 133 and 134 thereof.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/26

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-62/12) (1)

(Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Natural person - Taxable supply of a service - Occasional supply - Unconnected with a registered professional activity subject to VAT - Self-employed bailiff)

2013/C 225/41

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Galin Kostov

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — Liability to VAT of a natural person carrying out, on an occasional basis, supplies of taxable services not connected with his profession as a bailiff

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who is already a taxable person for value added tax purposes in respect of his activities as a self-employed bailiff must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ in respect of any other economic activity carried out occasionally, provided that that activity constitutes an activity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/36

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker

(Case C-320/12) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 4(4)(g) - Trade marks - Conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a trade mark - Refusal of registration or invalidation - Concept of ‘bad faith’ of the applicant - Whether the applicant knows of the existence of a foreign mark)

2013/C 225/62

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd

Defendant: Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Refusal of registration or invalidity of a trade mark — Concept of bad faith — Applicant who knew or should have known of a foreign trade mark when filing the application for registration — Cancellation of the registration of a plastic milk bottle as a trade mark on the ground that the applicant knew at the time of filing his application of the earlier similar mark used abroad by a competing company

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘bad faith’, within the meaning of that provision, is an autonomous concept of European Union law which must be given a uniform interpretation in the European Union.

2. Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to permit the conclusion that the person making the application for registration of a trade mark is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision, it is necessary to take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration. The fact that the person making that application knows or should know that a third party is using a mark abroad at the time of filing his application which is liable to be confused with the mark whose registration has been applied for is not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the person making that application is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision.

3. Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow Member States to introduce a system of specific protection of foreign marks which differs from the system established by that provision and which is based on the fact that the person making the application for registration of a mark knew or should have known of a foreign mark.

(1) OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
2.

The second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112 is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State, on its accession to the European Union, from introducing a limitation on the right to a deduction under a national legislative provision which provides for the exclusion from the right to a deduction of goods and services intended to be supplied free of charge or for activities outside the scope of the taxable person’s economic activity, when such an exclusion was not provided for in the national legislation in force until the date of that accession; It is for the referring court to interpret the provisions of domestic law at issue in the main proceedings, so far as possible, in accordance with European Union law. Where such an interpretation proves impossible, the referring court is required to set aside those provisions on the ground that they are incompatible with the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112.
1.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax, the concept of ‘supply of goods’ for the purposes of that directive and evidence that such a supply has in fact been carried out are not linked to the form of the acquisition of a right of ownership of the goods concerned. It is for the referring court to carry out, in accordance with the national rules relating to evidence, an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the dispute before it in order to determine whether the supplies of goods at issue in the main proceedings were actually carried out and whether, as the case may be, a right to deduct may be exercised on the basis of those supplies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/28

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission

(Case C-179/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company - Joint control by two parent companies - Decisive influence - Rights of defence - Increase in the fine - Deterrent effect)

2013/C 344/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: The Dow Chemical Company (represented by: D. Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, V. Bottka and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 in Case T-77/08 The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission in which that Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber) concerning a cartel on the market for chloroprene rubber in the European Economic Area (EEA), relating to market-sharing and price-fixing, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — Joint venture — Imputability of the unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders The Dow Chemical Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/30

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Serebryannay vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-283/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 - Chargeable event - Reciprocal supplies of services - Transactions for consideration - Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of services - Assignment by a natural person to a company of the right to use and to let to third parties immoveable property in exchange for that company’s services to improve and furnish the property)

2013/C 344/52

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Serebryannay vek EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Legislation under which, in the case of non-pecuniary remuneration of a supplier, the consideration for his services consists of another supply of services — Whether a transaction is to be classified as an exchange of services or not — If not, whether the improvement and furnishing of immoveable property may be classified as a taxable transaction — Occurrence of the chargeable event and rule for determining the basis of assessment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services to fit out and furnish an apartment must be regarded as having been carried out for consideration if, under a contract concluded with the owner of that apartment, the supplier of those services, first, undertakes to carry out that supply of services at its own expense and, secondly, obtains the right to have that apartment at its disposal in order to use it for its business activities during the term of that contract, without being required to pay rent, whereas the owner recovers the improved apartment at the end of that contract.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.