ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH

(Case C-119/10) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(b) - Filling of cans already bearing a sign similar to a trade mark - Service provided under an order from and on the instructions of another person - Action taken by trade-mark proprietor against the service provider)

2012/C 39/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV

Defendant: Red Bull GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5 of 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) — Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to oppose the unlawful use of its mark — Use of a sign — Filling of cans already bearing a sign as a service for and under an order from another person — Goods destined exclusively for export to countries outside the Benelux area or the European Union — Relevant public

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider who, under an order from and on the instructions of another person, fills packaging which was supplied to it by the other person who, in advance, affixed to it a sign which is identical with, or similar to, a sign protected as a trade mark does not itself make use of the sign that is liable to be prohibited under that provision.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v European Commission

(Case C-386/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper plumbing tubes - Fines - Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration - Effective judicial remedy)

2012/C 32/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon (represented by: I. Forrester QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Grippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents, B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 in Case T-21/05 Chalkor v Commission by which the Court reduced the fine imposed on the appellant by Commission Decision 2006/485/EC of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper Plumbing Tubes) (notified under document number C(2004) 2826), concerning a system for the allocation of production volume and market shares and the establishment of objectives and price increases in the European market for copper plumbing tubes

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A. Salemink v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-347/10) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Worker employed on gas-drilling platform on the continental shelf adjacent to the Netherlands - Compulsory insurance - Refusal to pay invalidity benefit)

2012/C 73/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. Salemink

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Amsterdam — Interpretation of Articles 45 TFEU and 355 TFEU, Article 52 TEU and Titles I and II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — National compulsory sickness insurance scheme not applicable to persons who are working on a drilling platform situated on the Netherlands section of the continental shelf for an employer established in the Netherlands and who are resident in the territory of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, and Article 39 EC must be interpreted as precluding an employee, working on a fixed installation on the continental shelf adjacent to a Member State, from being in a position in which he is not compulsorily insured under national statutory employee insurance in that Member State solely on the ground that he is not resident there but in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Teresa Cicala v Regione Siciliana

(Case C-482/10) (1)

(National administrative procedure - Administrative acts - Obligation to state reasons - Possibility of failure to state reasons being remedied during legal proceedings against an administrative act - Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2012/C 49/16

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Teresa Cicala

Defendant: Regione Siciliana

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Interpretation of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Compatibility of national legislation providing that public authorities are not obliged to state reasons for their acts in certain circumstances or may supplement a lack of reasons for an administrative act in the course of court proceedings brought against that act

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to respond to the questions posed by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana (Italy), by decision of 20 September 2010.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

(Case C-280/10) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9, 168, 169 and 178 - Deduction of input tax paid in respect of transactions conducted with a view to carrying out planned economic activity - Purchase of land by the partners of a partnership - Invoices drawn up prior to registration of the partnership seeking the deduction)

2012/C 118/02

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz spółka jawna

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 9, 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax paid in respect of transactions conducted with a view to carrying out planned economic activity but prior to registration of a partnership — Purchase of land by the future partners

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 9, 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits neither partners nor their partnership to exercise the right to deduct input VAT on investment costs incurred by those partners, before the creation and registration of the partnership, for the purposes of and with the view to its economic activity.

2. Articles 168 and 178(a) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the input VAT paid cannot be deducted by a partnership when the invoice, drawn up before the registration and identification of the partnership for the purposes of value added tax, was issued in the name of the partners of that partnership.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
2.

A commercial practice such as that at issue in the main proceedings which consists in indicating in a credit agreement an annual percentage rate of charge lower than the real rate must be regarded as ‘misleading’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) in so far as it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings. A finding that such a commercial practice is unfair is one element among others on which the competent court may, pursuant to Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13, base its assessment of the unfairness of the contractual terms relating to the cost of the loan granted to the consumer. Such a finding, however, has no direct effect on the assessment, from the point of view of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, of the validity of the credit agreement concluded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración del Estado

(Case C-456/10) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Articles 34 TFEU and 37 TFEU - National legislation prohibiting tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products - Rule concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly on the marketing of tobacco products - Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions - Justification - Consumer protection)

2012/C 174/07

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT)

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Intervening parties: Unión de Asociaciones de Estanqueros de España, Logivend SLU, Organización Nacional de Asociaciones de Estanqueros

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 34 TFEU — National monopoly on the marketing of tobacco products — Prohibition of tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products imposed for the benefit of wholesalers — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products from other Member States.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v 3M Italia SpA

(Case C-417/10) (1)

(Direct taxation - Conclusion of proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters - Abuse of rights - Article 4(3) TEU - Freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty - Principle of non-discrimination - State aid - Obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law)

2012/C 151/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Defendant: 3M Italia SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Corporation tax — National legislation providing for different rates of tax on the dividends of a company depending on where it is resident — Commercial transaction involving the participation of companies resident in Italy and companies established abroad — Decision of the authorities considering that the taxes payable were applicable in the case of the companies resident abroad — Concept of the abuse of rights as defined in Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others — Whether applicable to non-harmonised domestic taxes such as direct taxes

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law, in particular the principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights, Article 4(3) TEU, the freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, the principle of non-discrimination, the rules on State aid and the obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law, must be interpreted as not precluding the application, in a case such as that in the main proceedings relating to direct taxation, of a provision of national law which provides for proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters to be concluded in return for payment of a sum equivalent to 5 % of the value of the claim, where those proceedings originate in an application made at first instance more than 10 years before the date of entry into force of that provision and the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-39/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Income tax - Allowance - Retirement pensions - Effect on small pensions - Discrimination between resident and non-resident taxpayers)

2012/C 194/02

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, K. Saaremäel-Stoilov and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: M. Linntam, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by M. Muñoz Pérez and A. Rubio Gonzáles, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Ossowski, acting as Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by J. Möller, C. Blaschke and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the EEA Agreement — Income tax on retirement pensions — National legislation not providing for the granting of exemption from income tax to non-residents whose total income is so small that they would be exempted from income tax if they were resident taxpayers

Operative part of the judgment:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by excluding non-resident pensioners from benefiting from the allowances laid down by the Law on income tax (Tulumaksuseadus) of 15 December 1999, as amended by the Law of 26 November 2009, where, because of the modest amount of their pensions, they are not taxable in the Member State of residence under the tax legislation of that State, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

2. Orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2012 — Hungary v Slovak Republic

(Case C-364/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 259 TFEU - Citizenship of the European Union - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right to move within the territory of the Member States - President of Hungary - Prohibition on entering the territory of the Slovak Republic - Diplomatic relations between Member States)

2012/C 379/03

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and E. Orgován, Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, D. Maidani and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Re:

Article 259 TFEU — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 18(1) EC, Article 3(2) TEU, Article 21(1) TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Abusive application of European Union law — Prohibition on entering the territory of the Slovak Republic imposed on the President of Hungary when intending to take up the invitation made by a social organisation — Prohibition on entry based, in part, on Directive 2004/38/EC — Application of the provisions of European Union law on the free movement of persons to Heads of State and to other persons representing the Member States

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-334/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) - Part of a capital item forming part of the assets of a business - Temporary use for private purposes - Permanent alterations to that item - Payment of VAT in respect of the permanent alterations - Right to deduct)

2012/C 295/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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) — Deduction of input tax — Taxable person who has made temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of his business and who has, for those purposes, made permanent alterations to that part of the item — Entitlement to deduct the VAT paid in respect of the permanent alterations

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, first, a taxable person who makes temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of his business is entitled, under those provisions, to deduct the input value added tax on the expenditure incurred in carrying out permanent alterations to that item even though those alterations were carried out with a view to that temporary use for private purposes and, secondly, that right to deduct exists irrespective of whether the taxable person was charged VAT and deducted that VAT upon the acquisition of the capital item to which those alterations were made.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2012 — AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc v European Commission, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)

(Case C-457/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market in anti-ulcer medicines - Abuse of procedures relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products and of marketing authorisation procedures for medicinal products - Misleading representations - Deregistration of marketing authorisations - Obstacles to the marketing of generic medicinal products and to parallel imports)

2013/C 26/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc (represented by: M. Brealey QC, M. Hoskins QC, D. Jowell, Barrister and F. Murphy, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, Agents), European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (represented by: M. Van Kerckhove, advocaat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-321/05 AstraZeneca v Commission, in which the General Court annulled, in part, the Commission Decision of 15 June 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC and Article 54 EEA (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3 — AstraZeneca) which imposed a fine of EUR 60 million on the appellants for abuse of the patent system and the procedure for placing pharmaceutical products on the market in order to prevent or delay the arrival on the market of competing generic medicinal products — Definition of the market — Interpretation of Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 1786/92 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and cross-appeals;

2. Orders AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to pay the costs of its cross-appeal and to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to its cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.