ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-164/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2012/C 399/06

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, acting as Agent)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to adapt its electricity taxation system to the provisions laid down by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Application of a single rate on expiry of the transitional period

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to adapt its electricity taxation system to the provisions laid down by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, despite the expiry of the transitional period provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of that directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.
1.

Declares that, by authorising pomazánkové máslo (butter spread) to be sold under the designation ‘máslo’ (butter) even though that product has a milk fat content of less than 80 % and water and dry non-fat milk-material contents of more than 16 % and 2 % respectively, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 115 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) in conjunction with the first and second subparagraphs of point I(2) of Annex XV to that regulation and points 1 and 4 of part A of the appendix to that annex;
2.

The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights read in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, is to be interpreted as meaning that the request for information made by the holder of a Community plant variety right to a supplier of processing services need not contain evidence to support the indications put forward therein. Moreover, the fact that a farmer has planted under contract a protected plant variety cannot, by itself, constitute an indication that a supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by planting propagating material of that variety for planting. Such a fact may, however, in the light of the other circumstances of the case, lead to the conclusion that there is such an indication, which is for the referring court to determine in the dispute before it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/14

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau — Germany) — Alexander Heimann (C-229/11), Konstantin Toltschin (C-230/11) v Kaiser GmbH,

(Joined Cases C-229/11 and C-230/11) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Short-time working (‘Kurzarbeit’) - Reduction of paid annual leave on the basis of short-time working - Allowance in lieu)

2013/C 9/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Passau

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alexander Heimann (C-229/11), Konstantin Toltschin (C-230/11)

Defendant: Kaiser GmbH,

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Passau — Interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389) and of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Reduction in the usual hours worked in the undertaking, as a result of short-time working (‘Kurzarbeit’) — National legislation providing for a reduced entitlement to paid annual leave on the basis of the reduction in the number of working days under short-time working

Operative part of the judgment

Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation or practice, such as a social plan agreed between an undertaking and its works council, under which the paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is calculated according to the pro rata temporis rule.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Karen Dittrich (C-124/11), Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Robert Klinke (C-125/11) and Jörg-Detlef Müller v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-143/11)

(Joined Cases C-124/11, C-125/11 and C-143/11) (1)

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - National rules - Assistance granted to public servants in the event of illness - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 3 - Scope - Concept of ‘pay’)

2013/C 26/08

Language of the cases: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-124/11 and C-125/11), Jörg-Detlef Müller (C-143/11)

Defendants: Karen Dittrich (C-124/11), Robert Klinke (C-125/11), Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-143/11)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for assistance paid to public servants in case of illness excluding life partners from the members of the family who can be covered by the assistance in question — Equal treatment of workers in a registered partnership and married workers — Scope of Directive 2000/78/EC — Concept of remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) and 3(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that assistance granted to public servants in the event of illness, such as that granted to public servants of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland under the Law on federal public servants (Bundesbeamtengesetz), falls within the scope of that directive if it is the responsibility of the State, as a public employer, to finance it, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.09.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission — Austria) — Westbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-136/11) (1)

(Transport - Rail transport - Obligation of the railway infrastructure manager to provide railway undertakings in real time with all information concerning train movements, in particular information on delays to connecting trains)

2013/C 26/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schienen-Control Kommission

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Westbahn Management GmbH

Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Schienen-Control Kommission Wien — Interpretation of Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14) and of Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29) — Obligation of the railway infrastructure manager to provide railway undertakings, in real time, with all information on train movements, including information on possible delays in connecting services

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Part II of Annex II to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the information on main connecting services must, in addition to scheduled departure times, also include delays to or cancellations of those connecting services, whichever railway undertaking operates them.

2. Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Part II of Annex II to, Regulation No 1371/2007 and Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the infrastructure manager is required to make available to railway undertakings, in a non-discriminatory manner, real time data relating to trains operated by other railway undertakings, in so far as those trains constitute main connecting services within the meaning of Part II of Annex II to Regulation No 1371/2007.

(1) OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio — Greece) — Epitropos tou Elegktikou Sinedriou sto Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou v Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou — Ipiresia Dimosionomikou Elenchou

(Case C-363/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU - Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature - National court of auditors ruling on prior authorisation of public expenditure - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 46/13

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Elegktiko Sinedrio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Epitropos tou Elegktikou Sinedriou sto Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou

Defendant: Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou — Ipiresia Dimosionomikou Elenchou

Third party: Konstantinos Antonopoulos

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Elegktiko Synedrio — Interpretation of clause 4(1) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) and Article 153 TFEU — Employment condition or working condition — Meaning — Conditions of remuneration for time engaged in trade union activities, as leave for trade union business — Inclusion

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio (Greece) made by decision of 1 July 2011 is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Caves Krier Frères SARL v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

(Case C-379/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Subsidy for the recruitment of older unemployed persons and the long-term unemployed - Condition of registration with a placement office of the national employment administration - Residence condition - Restriction - Justification)

2013/C 38/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Caves Krier Frères SARL

Respondent: Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU — National legislation making reimbursement of social security contributions to private sector employers upon the hiring of unemployed persons aged over 45 years subject to the condition that the persons be registered with a placement office of the national employment administration for at least one month — Registration condition subject to a residence condition — Obstacle to the free movement of workers — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant to employers of a subsidy for the recruitment of unemployed persons aged over 45 years subject to the condition that the unemployed person recruited has been registered as a job seeker in that same Member State, in the case where such registration is subject to a condition of residence in the national territory, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanța — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against Ciprian Vasile Radu

(Case C-396/11) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution - Grounds for refusing execution)

2013/C 86/07

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curte de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ciprian Vasile Radu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Constanța — Interpretation of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), and of Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 6, 48 and 52 thereof — European arrest warrant issued for prosecution purposes — Possibility for the Member State responsible for executing the warrant to refuse the request for surrender of the person sought on grounds of failure to comply with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and also because the Member State which issued the warrant has failed, in whole or in part, to transpose Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA into national law

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authorities cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution on the ground that the requested person was not heard in the issuing Member State before that arrest warrant was issued.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-224/11) (1)

(VAT - Leasing services supplied together with insurance for the leased item, subscribed to by the lessor and invoiced by the latter to the lessee - Classification - Single complex service or two distinct services - Exemption - Insurance transaction)

2013/C 63/04

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Izba Finansowa, Wydział I — Intrerpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 28 and 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Leasing service accompanied by a service involving the taking-out of insurance on the subject-matter of the leasing service, entered into by the leasing undertaking and invoiced by the latter to the lessee — Whether the transaction is to be treated, for purposes of VAT, as a single composite service or as two independent services

Operative part of the judgment

1. The supply of insurance services for a leased item and the supply of the leasing services themselves must, in principal, be regarded as distinct and independents supplies of services for VAT purposes. It if for the referring court to determine whether, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the transactions concerned are so closely linked that they must be regarded as constituting a single supply or whether, to the contrary, they constitute independent services.

2. Where the lessor insures the leased item itself and re-invoices the exact cost of the insurance to the lessee, such a transaction constitutes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, an insurance transaction within the meaning of Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly the Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Csaba Csipai, Viktória Csipai

(Case C-472/11) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a term is unfair - Obligation on the national court, once it has found, of its own motion, that a term is unfair, to invite the parties to submit their observations before drawing conclusions from that finding - Contractual terms to be taken into account in the assessment of that unfairness)

2013/C 114/19

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly the Fővárosi Bíróság)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Banif Plus Bank Zrt.

Respondents: Csaba Csipai, Viktória Csipai

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — National legislation providing that a national court is limited in its examination of the unfair nature of standard contract terms where the parties do not expressly request it to declare that a term is unfair — Option for the national court which finds a standard term of a contract before it to be unfair, in the absence of an express request to that effect, to ask the parties to the dispute to make a statement relating to that contract term so that the question of the invalidity of the contract on that ground may be examined

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the national court which has found of its own motion that a contractual term is unfair is not obliged, in order to be able to draw the consequences arising from that finding, to wait for the consumer, who has been informed of his rights, to submit a statement requesting that that term be declared invalid. However, the principle of audi alteram partem, as a general rule, requires the national court which has found of its own motion that a contractual term is unfair to inform the parties to the dispute of that fact and to invite each of them to set out its views on that matter, with the opportunity to challenge the views of the other party, in accordance with the formal requirements laid down in that regard by the national rules of procedure.

2. The national court must, in order to determine whether the contractual term on which the claim brought before it is based may be unfair, take account of all of the other terms of the contract.

(1) OJ C 370, 17.12.2012.
1.

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, preclude national legislation under which a parent company merging with a subsidiary established in another Member State, which has ceased activity, cannot deduct from its taxable income the losses incurred by that subsidiary in respect of the tax years prior to the merger, while that national legislation allows such a possibility when the merger is with a resident subsidiary. Such national legislation is none the less incompatible with European Union law if it does not allow the parent company the possibility of showing that its non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities of taking those losses into account and that there is no possibility of their being taken into account in its State of residence in respect of future tax years either by itself or by a third party;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Blanka Soukupová v Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-401/11) (1)

(Agriculture - EAGGF - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Support for rural development - Early retirement support - Transferor not less than 55 years old but not yet of normal retirement age at the time of transfer - Concept of ‘normal retirement age’ - National legislation determining a retirement age which varies depending on the sex of the applicant and, for women, on the number of children raised - General principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination)

2013/C 156/10

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Blanka Soukupová

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80) and of the general principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Support for early retirement in agriculture payable to a transferor aged at least 55 but not having reached normal retirement age at the time of transfer — Concept of ‘normal retirement age’ — National legislation laying down a variable retirement age depending on sex and, for women, the number of children brought up

Operative part of the judgment

It is incompatible with European Union law and the general principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination for ‘normal retirement age’, for the purposes of the second indent of Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations, to be determined differently depending on the gender of the applicant for support for early retirement from farming and, in the case of female applicants, on the number of children raised by the applicant, under the provisions of the national retirement scheme of the Member State concerned relating to the age required for entitlement to an old-age pension.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.