ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Leyla Ecem Demirkan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-221/11) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Additional Protocol - Article 41(1) - ‘Standstill’ clause - Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State - Freedom to provide services - The right of a Turkish national to enter a Member State in order to visit a family member and, potentially, to receive services)

2013/C 344/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leyla Ecem Demirkan

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970, annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to measures to be taken for their implementation (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 3) — Interpretation of the concept of ‘freedom to provide services’ in that provision — Possible inclusion of ‘passive’ freedom to provide services — Right of a Turkish national to travel to another Member State in order to visit a member of his family there and possibly to receive services

Operative part of the judgment

The notion of ‘freedom to provide services’ in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 must be interpreted as not encompassing freedom for Turkish nationals who are the recipients of services to visit a Member State in order to obtain services.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, Fruition Po Ltd v Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health

(Case C-500/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 - Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 - Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Fruit and vegetables - Producer organisations - Conditions for recognition by national authorities - Provision of technical resources required for storage, packing and marketing of produce - Whether organisation obliged, in the event of delegation of its tasks to third party companies, to exercise control over those companies)

2014/C 52/08

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, Fruition Po Ltd

Defendant: Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ L 297, p. 1) and of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ L 203, p. 18) — Conditions for recognition by national authorities — Provision of the technical means necessary for storing, packaging and marketing produce — Whether the organisation is obliged, in cases of substantial delegation of duties to third party companies, to exercise control over those companies.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2699/2000 of 4 December 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that in order that a producer organisation which has entrusted to a third party the carrying out of the activities which are essential to its recognition under that provision can meet the conditions for recognition laid down therein, it is obliged to enter into a contractual agreement enabling it to continue to be responsible for the carrying out of those activities and for control of their overall management, in such a way that that organisation retains, ultimately, the power of control and, when necessary, the power to take timely action as regards those activities being carried out for the entire duration of the agreement. It is for the competent national court or tribunal to determine, in each case and taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including the nature and extent of the outsourced activities, whether the producer organisation concerned has retained such control.

(1) OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2012 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Minh Khoa Vo

(Case C-83/12 PPU) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Community Code on Visas - Articles 21 and 34 - National legislation - Third country nationals brought illegally into the territory of a Member State - Visas obtained by fraud - Criminal penalties imposed on the human smuggler)

2012/C 174/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party in the main proceedings

Minh Khoa Vo

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1) — National legislation imposing criminal penalties on persons who smuggle foreign nationals into national territory — Applicability of penalties when the foreign nationals concerned are in possession of a visa obtained by false pretences from a competent authority of another Member State but which has not yet been annulled pursuant to that regulation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national provisions under which assisting illegal immigration constitutes an offence subject to criminal penalties in cases where the persons smuggled, third country nationals, hold visas which they obtained fraudulently by deceiving the competent authorities of the Member State of issue as to the true purpose of their journey, without prior annulment of those visas.

(1) OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt — Germany) — Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH v Finanzamt Magdeburg

(Case C-129/12) (1)

(Regional aid scheme - Investment in the processing and marketing of agricultural products - Commission decision - Incompatibility with the internal market - Abolition of incompatible aid - Time at which aid is granted - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

2013/C 156/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Magdeburg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt — Interpretation of Commission Decision 1999/183/EC of 20 May 1998 concerning State aid for the processing and marketing of German agricultural products which might be granted on the basis of existing regional aid schemes (OJ 1999 L 60, p. 61) — Obligation on Germany to repeal the existing aid schemes which are inconsistent with the framework proposed by the Commission in its communication concerning such aid — Temporal scope of that obligation — Possibility for the Member State concerned to not repeal the aid in question for investments envisaged before the expiration of the period for the implementation of the decision and before the publication of the intention of the Member State to repeal the aid for such investments where the investment in question has been made after the implementation of the decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Commission Decision 1999/183/EC of 20 May 1998 concerning State aid for the processing and marketing of German agricultural products which might be granted on the basis of existing regional aid schemes must be interpreted as precluding the grant of investment aid concerning milling in relation to which the binding investment decision was made before the expiration of the period afforded to the Federal Republic of Germany to comply with that decision or before the publication in the Bundessteuerblatt of the measures taken to that effect, when the delivery of the capital asset and the determination and disbursement of the subsidy took place only after the expiration of that period or that publication, if the time at which an investment subsidy is considered to be granted is only after the expiration of that period. It is for the referring court to determine when an investment subsidy, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be considered to be granted, by taking account of all the conditions laid down by national law for obtaining the aid in question and ensuring that the prohibition laid down in Article 2(1) of Decision 1999/183 is not circumvented.

(1) OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/21

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigia AE v European Commission

(Case C-246/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Shipbuilding - Decision declaring aid measures incompatible with the common market - Protection of the essential interests of national security - Competition conditions in the internal market)

2013/C 114/31

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Ellinika Nafpigia AE (represented by: I. Drosos and V. Karagiannis, dikigori)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-391/08 Ellinika Nafpigia v Commission dismissing an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3118 final of 2 July 2008 declaring incompatible with the common market aid granted by the Greek authorities in favour of Ellinika Nafpigia (Hellenic Shipyards ‘HSY’), in the context of amendments to the initial investment plan relating to the restructuring of that shipyard (State aid C 16/2004 (ex NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005))

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ellinika Nafpigia AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/23

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat OP 84 v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)

(Case C-3/12) (1)

(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - ‘Scrutiny period’ - Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed - Repayment of financial assistance - Penalties)

2013/C 225/37

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Syndicat OP 84

Respondent: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18) — ‘Scrutiny period’ — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny owing to the conduct of the recipient of the financial assistance — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/94 of 12 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities may, if necessary, carry out the scrutiny operations — notified during the scrutiny period falling between 1 July of one year and 30 June of the following year — beyond the end of that period, without causing the procedure to be marred by an irregularity which the operator under scrutiny may rely on against the decision giving due effects to the results of the scrutiny.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/36

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA

(Case C-287/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Loan granted by the Italian Republic to the airline company Alitalia - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible - Sale of assets of Alitalia - Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Interested party - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Competence - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 225/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros,)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and D. Grespan), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA, (represented by: G. Bellitti, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 in Case T-123/09 Ryanair v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking, first, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 6743 of 12 November 2008 on the loan of EUR 300 million granted by Italy to Alitalia (Aid No C 26/08) (ex NN 31/08) (OJ 2009 L 52, p. 3), in so far as that decision did not order the recovery of the aid from Alitalia’s successors, and, second, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008 declaring that the procedure for selling off the assets of the Alitalia airline company, in the context of the extraordinary administrative procedure set to lead to the liquidation of that airline, does not constitute State aid, provided that the Italian authorities respect their commitments to ensure that the transactions will be carried out at the market price (Aid N 510/2008) (OJ 2009 C 46, p. 6)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ryanair Ltd to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
1.

A tax regime such as that at issue in the main proceedings may satisfy the condition of selectivity as an element of the concept of ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if it were to be established that the reference system, namely, the ‘normal’ system, consists in a prohibition of the deduction of losses in the case of a change of ownership for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Paragraph 122 of Law No 1535/1992 of 30 December 1992 on income tax (Tuloverolaki), in relation to which the authorisation procedure provided for in the third subparagraph of Paragraph 122 would constitute an exception. Such a regime may be justified by the nature or general scheme of the system of which it forms part, but justification is not possible if the competent national authorities, so far as concerns authorisation to derogate from the prohibition of the deduction of losses, have discretion that empowers them to base authorisation decisions on criteria unrelated to that tax regime. However, the Court does not have sufficient information before it to rule definitively on those classifications.
1.

Declares that, by failing to designate as vulnerable zones a number of zones characterised by the presence of surface and groundwater bodies which are, or may be, affected by excessive nitrate content and/or eutrophication, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, and Annex I thereto;
1.

(a) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding the creation, by a Member State, of a specialised training course, either in the field of medicine or that of dentistry, the title of which does not correspond to those listed, in respect of that Member State, in Annex V to that directive. Such a specialised course may be open both to persons who have completed only a basic medical training course and to those who have completed and validated only studies in the context of a basic dental training course. (b) It is for the national court to verify: — whether that specialised training course, in so far as it does not fulfil the requirements laid down by Articles 23 and 24 of the directive regarding basic medical and dental training, does not lead to the issuing of evidence of basic medical training or evidence of basic dental training, and — whether the qualification awarded following the completion of that specialised training course does not authorise the practice of the core medical or dental profession by persons who do not possess evidence of formal qualifications in basic medical training or evidence of formal qualifications in basic dental training.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/34

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA

(Case C-322/12) (1)

(Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC - Article 2(3) - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Article 2(5) - Obligation to depart from that principle - Article 32 - Valuation method based on historical cost - Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value)

2013/C 344/58

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendant: GIMLE SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 2(3), (4) and (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Acquisition price of assets not reflecting their real value and giving a distorted view of the company’s assets — Obligation to depart from the rule that assets are to be entered in the accounts at their acquisition cost and to recognise them immediately as having their resale value

Operative part of the judgment

The principle that a true and fair view must be given, set out in Article 2(3) to (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, does not permit the principle of valuation of assets on the basis of their acquisition price or their production cost, contained in Article 32 of that directive, to be departed from in favour of a valuation on the basis of their real value, where the acquisition price or the production cost of those assets is manifestly lower than their real value.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/25

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

(Case C-122/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

2013/C 344/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (represented by F. Baujoin, avocate)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09 Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires, by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the proprietor of certain national and Community word marks, a national figurative mark and a business name containing the word ‘PROTI’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, for the annulment of Decision R 1661/2007-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 February 2009, which had dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by Mr Rintisch against registration of the word mark ‘PROTIACTIVE’ in respect of goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.