ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Philips Electronics UK Ltd

(Case C-18/11) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Tax relief - National legislation excluding the transfer of losses incurred in the national territory by a non-resident branch of a company established in another Member State to a company of the same group established in the national territory)

(2012/C 331/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendant: Philips Electronics UK Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation Tax — Tax relief — National legislation excluding the transfer of losses realised within the national territory by a non-resident branch of a company established in another Member State to a company established in the national territory belonging to the same group

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 43 EC must be interpreted as meaning that where, under the national legislation of a Member State, the possibility of transferring, by means of group relief and to a resident company, losses sustained by the permanent establishment in that Member State of a non-resident company is subject to a condition that those losses cannot be used for the purposes of foreign taxation, and where the transfer of losses sustained in that Member State by a resident company is not subject to any equivalent condition, such provisions constitute a restriction on the freedom of a non resident company to establish itself in another Member State.

2. A restriction on the freedom of a non-resident company to establish itself in another Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest based on the objective of preventing the double use of losses or the objective of preserving a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States or by a combination of those two grounds.

3. In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the national court must disapply any provision of the national legislation which is contrary to Article 43 EC.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Garkalns SIA v Rīgas dome

(Case C-470/11) (1)

(Article 49 EC - Restrictions on freedom to provide services - Equal treatment - Obligation of transparency - Betting and gaming - Casinos, amusement arcades and bingo halls - Obligation to obtain the prior agreement of the municipality of the place of establishment - Discretion - Substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned - Justifications - Proportionality)

2012/C 295/27

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās Tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Garkalns SIA

Defendant: Rīgas dome

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU (Article 49 EC) — National legislation providing, for the purpose of limiting betting and gaming, a system of authorisation for the establishment of casinos, amusement arcades and bingo halls — Refusal to grant authorisation for the development of an amusement arcade on the ground that the organisation of betting and gaming in the premises envisaged would substantially impair the interests of the residents of the local area

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on local authorities a broad discretion in enabling them to refuse authorisation to open a casino, amusement arcade or bingo hall on grounds of ‘substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned’, provided that that legislation is genuinely intended to reduce opportunities for gambling and to limit activities in that domain in a consistent and systematic manner or to ensure the maintenance of public order and in so far as the competent authorities exercise their powers of discretion in a transparent manner, so that the impartiality of the authorisation procedures can be monitored, it being for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

(1) OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Partena ASBL v Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA

(Case C-137/11) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 13 and 14c - Legislation applicable - Self-employed persons - Social security scheme - Insurance - Person employed or unemployed in a Member State - Self-employed activity in another Member State - Company agent - Residence in a Member State other than the State where the company has its registered office - Management of the company from the State of residence - National legislation establishing an irrebuttable presumption of pursuing a professional activity as a self-employed person in the Member State where the company has its registered office - Obligatory insurance with that State’s social security scheme for self-employed persons)

2012/C 366/18

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Partena ASBL

Defendant: Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail — Interpretation of Article 21 TFEU and Articles 13 and 14c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Worker simultaneously employed in the territory of one Member State and self-employed in the territory of another Member State — Whether a person who is resident in another Member State and who manages from abroad a company which is liable to tax in that State is covered by the social security scheme for self-employed persons — Non-discrimination and citizenship of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Articles 13(2)(b) and 14c(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, and Annex VII thereto, precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in so far as it allows a Member State to presume irrebuttably that management from another Member State of a company subject to tax in the first Member State has taken place in that first Member State.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-96/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse)

(2012/C 331/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: T. Reher and R.W. Staub, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 in Case T-13/09 Storck v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008, rejecting the appeal filed against the decision of the Examiners refusing registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a chocolate mouse as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 30 — Distinctive character of the mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
2.

Article 47 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that where an economic operator cannot meet a minimum level of economic and financial standing consisting in a requirement that the profit/loss item in the balance sheet of candidates or tenderers should not be negative for more than one of the last three completed financial years, because of an agreement under which that economic operator systematically transfers its profits to its parent company, that operator has no other option, in order to meet that minimum capacity level, than to rely on the capacities of another entity, in accordance with Article 47(2). It is irrelevant in that regard that the legislation of the Member State of establishment of that economic operator and that of the Member State of establishment of the contracting authority differ in that such an agreement is authorised without limitation by the legislation of the first Member State whereas, under the legislation of the second, it would only be authorised on condition that the transfer of profits does not have the effect of making the profit/loss item in the balance sheet negative.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/16

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-629/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public contract awarded by the Commission - Rejection of the tender - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 100(2) - Time-limit for replying to a request for information - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 - Article 149(2))

2012/C 366/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Calciu and S. Delaude, Agents, and P. Wytinck, advocaat)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-298/09 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing an application first, for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 May 2009 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in response to call for tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, second, for damages — Article 93(1)(f) of the Financial Regulation — Period of validity of tenders — Non-contractual liability

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/20

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-469/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for damages - Rejection of a bid submitted in a European Union tendering procedure - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run - Application of the extension of time on account of distance)

2013/C 9/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2011 in Case T-409/09 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded an action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Commission rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the course of a tendering procedure — Periods prescribed for bringing proceedings — Extensions on account of distance

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/14

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Belgium) — Europese Gemeenschap v Otis NV, General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Kone Belgium NV, Kone Luxembourg Sàrl, Schindler NV, Schindler Sàrl, ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl

(Case C-199/11) (1)

(Representation of the European Union before national courts - Articles 282 EC and 335 TFEU - Claim for damages in respect of loss caused to the European Union by a cartel - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to fair hearing - Right of access to a tribunal - Equality of arms - Article 16 of Regulation No 1/2003)

2013/C 9/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Europese Gemeenschap

Defendants: Otis NV, General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Kone Belgium NV, Kone Luxembourg Sàrl, Schindler NV, Schindler Sàrl, ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 282 EC (now Article 335 TFEU) — Representation of the European Union before national courts — Action for damages — Rules governing the bringing of such an action by the institutions

Operative part of the judgment

1. European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the European Commission is not precluded from representing the European Union before a national court hearing a civil action for damages in respect of loss caused to the European Union by an agreement or practice prohibited by Articles 81 EC and 101 TFEU which may have affected certain public contracts awarded by various institutions and bodies of the European Union, there being no need for the Commission to have authorisation for that purpose from those institutions and bodies.

2. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not preclude the European Commission from bringing an action before a national court, on behalf of the European Union, for damages in respect of loss sustained by the Union as a result of an agreement or practice which has been found by a decision of the Commission to infringe Article 81 EC or Article 101 TFEU.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu — Poland) — Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA, PPHU ‘ADAX’/Ryszard Adamiak v Christianapol sp. z o.o.

(Case C-116/11) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Concept of ‘closure of insolvency proceedings’ - Possibility for a court before which secondary insolvency proceedings have been brought to examine the debtor’s insolvency - Possibility of opening winding-up proceedings as secondary insolvency proceedings where the main proceedings are sauvegarde proceedings)

2013/C 26/07

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA, PPHU ‘ADAX’/Ryszard Adamiak

Defendant: Christianapol sp. z o.o.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu — Interpretation of Articles 4(1) and (2)(j) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Secondary insolvency proceedings — Right of the court having jurisdiction to open such proceedings in order to examine the debtor’s insolvency

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(2)(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 788/2008 of 24 July 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national law of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened to determine at which moment the closure of those proceedings occurs.

2. Article 27 of Regulation No 1346/2000, as amended by Regulation No 788/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that it permits the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings in the Member State in which the debtor has an establishment, where the main proceedings have a protective purpose. It is for the court having jurisdiction to open secondary proceedings to have regard to the objectives of the main proceedings and to take account of the scheme of the Regulation, in keeping with the principle of sincere cooperation.

3. Article 27 of Regulation No 1346/2000, as amended by Regulation No 788/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the court before which an application to have secondary insolvency proceedings opened has been made cannot examine the insolvency of a debtor against which main proceedings have been opened in another Member State, even where the latter proceedings have a protective purpose.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/18

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Council of the European Union v Nadiany Bamba, European Commission

(Case C-417/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Article 296 TFEU - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Rights of the defence - Right to an effective legal remedy - Right to respect for property)

2013/C 9/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and B. Driessen and by E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Nadiany Bamba, (represented: initially by P. Haïk, and subsequently by P. Maisonneuve, lawyers), European Commission (represented by: E. Cujo and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and É. Ranaivoson, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council in which the General Court annulled Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern Ms Nadiany Bamba — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council;

2. Dismisses Ms Bamba’s action;

3. Orders Ms Bamba to pay, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in connection with the present appeal and at first instance;

4. Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
1.

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to — medicinal substances which can be used habitually and suitably in the manufacturing of medicinal products; — medical devices, material, equipment and appliances which, viewed objectively, can be used only to prevent, diagnose, treat, alleviate or cure human or animal illnesses or ailments, but which are not normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled; — aids and equipment which may be used essentially or primarily to treat physical disabilities in animals; — and, finally, to aids and equipment essentially or primarily used to treat human disabilities, but which are not intended for the exclusive personal use of the disabled, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Planet AE

(Case C-314/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Identification of the level of risk associated with an entity - Early warning system - OLAF investigation - Decisions - Requests for activation of W1a and W1b warnings - Reviewable measures - Admissibility)

2013/C 46/11

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Planet AE (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-320/09 Planet AE v Commission dismissing the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission in an action for the annulment of Commission decisions, taken following investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), to activate, in the early warning system (EWS), a ‘W1a’ registration and subsequently a ‘W1b’ registration, identifying the level of risk associated with the applicant as a party awarded a public service contract concerning a project for institutional and sectoral modernisation in Syria, funded under the MEDA programme (OJ 2005 S 203-199730).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.