ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/35

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge

(Case C-271/12) (1)

(Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Right to deduct input tax - Obligations of the taxable person - Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices - Omission of mandatory particulars - Refusal of the right to deduct - Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced - Correcting invoices - Right to refund of VAT - Principle of neutrality)

2013/C 225/60

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens

Respondent: État belge

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) — Interpretation of the rules relating to value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Obligation on the part of the taxable person — Right to deduct VAT subject to possession of an invoice which must contain certain particulars — Concept of material particular — Refusal of the right to deduct — Subsequent provision of information as evidence of the occurrence, nature and amount of the services provided — Compatibility with European Union law of national case-law which refuses the right to deduct if mandatory particulars are not entered on the invoice — Interpretation of the principle of neutrality — Effect of inaccuracies in invoices on the obligation of the State to repay the VAT levied.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The provisions 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 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the right to deduct value added tax may be refused to taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, even if those invoices are supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, nature and amount of the transactions invoiced after such a refusal decision was adopted.

2. The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude the tax authority from refusing to refund the value added tax paid by a company providing services, in the case where the exercise of the right to deduct the value added tax levied on those services has been denied to the companies receiving those services by reason of the irregularities confirmed in the invoices issued by that service-providing company.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/12

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Eurofit SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

(Case C-99/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Export refunds - Misappropriation of goods intended for export - Exporter’s obligation to reimburse refunds - Failure of the competent authorities to provide information regarding the reliability of a contractor who is suspected of fraud - Force majeure - Absence)

2013/C 260/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurofit SA

Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

Re:

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ L 351, p. 1) — Exporter's obligation to reimburse refunds in the event of misappropriation of goods — Failure of the competent authorities to provide requested information or communication of erroneous information to the exporter, constituting a case of force majeure within the meaning of the Regulation

Operative part of the judgment

The failure by the competent customs authorities to inform the exporter of the existence of a likelihood of fraud committed by the exporter’s contractor does not constitute a case of force majeure for the purposes of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, and, in particular, the first indent of the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) thereof. While such a failure is liable to constitute an exceptional case within the meaning of the second indent of the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, it cannot, however, release that exporter from its obligation to reimburse export refunds unduly received, that exporter being exempted only from having to pay sanctions due under that article.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
1.

Declares that, by failing to close down all the landfill sites for the uncontrolled disposal of waste (XADA) which are operated on its territory or in failing to comply with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/29

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Brussels — Belgium) — Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA

(Case C-251/12) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Article 24(1) - Honouring an obligation ‘for the benefit of a debtor that is subject to insolvency proceedings’ - Payment made to a creditor of that debtor)

2013/C 344/50

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce, Brussels

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA

Defendant: Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Payment made to a creditor of the insolvent debtor, at the request of the latter, in the absence of publication of the decision opening insolvency proceedings in another Member State — Discharge of agent acting in good faith — The scope rationae personae — Definition of ‘for the benefit of the debtor’ including solely payments made to the insolvent debtor or also payments made to its creditors

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that a payment made at the behest of a debtor subject to insolvency proceedings to one of the latter’s creditors does not fall within the scope of that provision.

(1) OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/29

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12)

(Joined Cases C-216/12 and C-217/12) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg - Grant of a parental leave allowance - Concept of a ‘family benefit’)

2013/C 344/49

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

Respondents: Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) 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 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of point 1 of Section A of Annex II to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, concluded on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Concept of a ‘family benefit’ — Permissibility of national legislation providing for the grant of a parental leave allowance — Swiss national residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) 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 and as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a parental leave allowance, such as the allowance provided for under Luxembourg legislation, constitutes a ‘family benefit’ within the meaning of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Salim Lachheb, Nadia Lachheb

(Case C-177/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Family benefit - Child bonus - National regulation providing for a benefit to be granted by way of an automatic tax rebate for children - Non-cumulation of family benefits)

2013/C 367/16

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

Respondents: Salim Lachheb, Nadia Lachheb

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 1(u)(i), 3, 4(1)(h) and 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (English Special Edition, 1971(II), p. 416) — Interpretation of Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU, Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (English Special Edition, 1968(II), p. 475) and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (English Special Edition, 1972(I), p. 159) — Concept of ‘family benefit’ — Permissibility of a national regulation providing for a benefit in respect of every dependent child by way of tax reduction for workers who carry out their professional activity in the territory of another Member State — Equality of treatment — Suspension of the grant of family benefit in the State of employment in the amount of the family benefits provided by the legislation of the State of residence — Rules to prevent overlapping

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) 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, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a benefit such as the child bonus introduced by the Law of 21 December 2007 on the child bonus is a family benefit within the meaning of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.
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-121/12 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 344/41

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) (OHIM) (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-109/09 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 1660/2007-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 21 January 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 ‘PROTIVITAL’ 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-137/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Council Decision 2011/853/EU - European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access - Directive 98/84/EC - Legal basis - Article 207 TFEU - Common commercial policy - Article 114 TFEU - Internal market)

2013/C 367/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Cujo, I. Rogalski, R. Vidal Puig and D. Stefanov, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, J.-P. Hix and H. Legal, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and J. Rodrigues, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. Bulterman and M. de Ree, Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents); Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Stege, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: A. Robinson, Agent, assisted by G. Facenna, Barrister)

Re:

Action for annulment — Council Decision 2011/853/EU of 29 November 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (OJ 2011 L 336, p. 1) — Choice of legal basis — Replacement of the proposed legal basis, in the field of common commercial policy, with another legal basis, linked to the establishment and functioning of the internal market — Objective of promoting trade in services based on conditional access between the European Union and other European countries — Infringement of the European Union’s external competence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2011/853/EU of 29 November 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access;

2. Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/853 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which is not to exceed six months, of a new decision based on the appropriate legal bases;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

4. Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.
1.

Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of those articles, the concept of ‘production facilities’ includes silos intended to store the aid beneficiary’s sugar, irrespective of whether they are employed for other purposes. Silos used only to store sugar, produced under quota, from other producers or bought from those producers, or those silos used only for packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it are not included within that concept. It is for the national court to carry out such an assessment, on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the technical characteristics of the silos concerned or how they are actually used.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Wam Industriale SpA v European Commission

(Case C-560/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Establishing a company in certain third countries - Soft loans - Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court)

2014/C 9/23

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Wam Industriale SpA (represented by: E. Giliani and R. Bertoni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission, in which the General Court rejected an application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29) — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Reasonable time-limit

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Wam Industriale SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission

(Case C-280/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to substantiate the measure)

2014/C 45/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Kronshagen and C. Hirtzberger, avocats), European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent)

Interveners in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko and A. Robinson, Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister), French Republic (represented by: E. Ranaivoson and D. Colas, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) — Specific restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of law — Error of assessment — Burden of proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.