ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium)) — Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley v Belgische Staat

(Case C-132/10) (1)

(Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Inheritance tax on registered shares - Limitation period for the valuation of shares in non-resident companies longer than that applicable for resident companies - Restriction - Justification)

2011/C 319/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven — Interpretation of Articles 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — National legislation providing, in respect of inheritance tax on registered shares, for a limitation period of two years where the centre of effective management of the company issuing the shares is in the Member State concerned, and for a limitation period of 10 years in other cases

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides, as regards inheritance tax, for a limitation period of 10 years for the valuation of registered shares in a company whose centre of effective management is established in another Member State, while the same limitation period is two years when the company’s centre of effective management is in the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/11

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello

(Case C-163/10) (1)

(Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on Privileges and Immunities - Article 8 - Criminal proceedings for the offence of making false accusations - Statements made outside the precincts of the Parliament - Definition of opinion expressed in the performance of parliamentary duties - Immunity - Conditions)

2011/C 311/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Isernia

Party in the main proceedings

Aldo Patriciello

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Isernia — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) — Member of the European Parliament charged with slander following a false accusation levelled at a representative of the forces of law and order — Notion of the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted to the effect that a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 362/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Danfoss A/S, Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-94/10) (1)

(Indirect taxes - Excise duties on mineral oils - Incompatibility with European Union law - Non-repayment of excise duty to purchasers of goods to whom the excise duty has been passed on)

2011/C 362/08

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Danfoss A/S, Sauer-Danfoss ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of European Union law on recovery of sums unduly paid and the conditions for compensation for losses caused to individuals — Excise duties levied contrary to the system of harmonised excise duties put in place by Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) and Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duty on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) — Unlawful excise duty paid to the State by oil companies which sold oils subject to excise duty whilst incorporating the excise duty into the price of the goods — Failure by the State to repay the excise duty to purchasers of the oils on the ground that they had not paid it to the State — Refusal to compensate for the losses caused to the purchasers of the oils by the unlawful excise duty due to the lack of immediate loss and direct causal link between the infringement of the State’s obligation and the loss suffered

Operative part of the judgment

The rules of European Union law must be construed as meaning that:

1. a Member State may oppose a claim for reimbursement of a duty unduly paid, brought by the purchaser to whom that duty has been passed on, on the ground that it is not the purchaser who has paid the duty to the tax authorities, provided that the purchaser is able, on the basis of national law, to bring a civil action against the taxable person for recovery of the sum unduly paid and provided that the reimbursement, by that taxable person, of the duty unduly paid is not virtually impossible or excessively difficult;

2. a Member State may reject a claim for damages brought by a purchaser to whom a duty unduly paid has been passed on by the taxable person, on the ground that there is no direct causal link between the levying of that duty and the damage suffered, provided that the purchaser is able, on the basis of national law, to bring that claim against the taxable person and provided that the compensation, by that taxable person, of the damage suffered by the purchaser is not virtually impossible or excessively difficult.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Astrid Preissl KEG v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-381/10) (1)

(Industrial Policy - Food hygiene - Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 - Installation of a washbasin in the toilets of an establishment which sells food)

2011/C 347/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Astrid Preissl KEG

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Interpretation of paragraph 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1) and in particular of the word Handwaschbecken (washbasin for cleaning hands) contained in the German language version of that provision — Administrative decision of a Member State ordering the installation in the toilets of a café of a washbasin equipped with materials for hygienic washing and drying of hands

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs must be interpreted as not requiring that a washbasin within the meaning of that provision be used exclusively for washing hands or that it be possible to use the water tap or hand-drying material without touching by hand.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/13

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — Solvay SA v European Commission

(Case C-110/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Market in soda ash in the Community - Concerted practice - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Access to the file - Hearing of the undertaking)

2011/C 370/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: P. Foriers, R. Jafferali, F. Louis and A. Vallery, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocate)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 in Case T-58/01 Solvay v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the appellants application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] — Competition — Soda ash market in the Community — Agreement — Infringement of the right to be tried within reasonable time — Infringement of the rights of the defence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2009 in Case T-58/01 Solvay v Commission;

2. Annuls Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/33.133-B: Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK);

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Systeme Helmholz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg

(Case C-79/10) (1)

(Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(b) - Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation - Use of an aircraft for other than commercial purposes - Scope)

2012/C 32/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Systeme Helmholz GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Nürnberg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 11(3), 14(1)(b) and 15(1)(j) of 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) — Scope of the exemption from taxation provided for in respect of energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of air navigation — National legislation restricting that exemption to air navigation by air carriers — Flights for business and private purposes made using an aircraft belonging to an undertaking which is not an air carrier

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption on fuel used for the purpose of air navigation, provided for under that provision, cannot apply in the case of a company, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, which, in order to develop its business, uses its own aircraft to transport members of its staff to clients or to trade fairs, in so far as that travel is not directly used for the supply, by that company, of air services for consideration.

2. Article 15(1)(j) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as meaning that the fuel used for the purpose of flights to and from an aircraft maintenance facility does not fall within the scope of that provision.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Enel Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

(Case C-242/10) (1)

(Directive 2003/54/EC - Internal market in electricity - Electricity generating installations essential to the operation of the electricity system - Obligation to submit tenders on the national electricity exchange market in accordance with the limits and criteria laid down by the electricity transmission and distribution system operator - Dispatching and balancing service - Public service obligations)

2012/C 49/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enel Produzione SpA

Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

Intervener: Terna rete elettrica nazionale SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 23 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — National legislation requiring electricity producers, when submitting bids for the supply of electricity, to comply with rules laid down by the company responsible for the management of the electricity transmission and distribution grid

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC and, in particular, Article 3(2) and Article 11(2) and (6) of that directive must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of reducing the price of electricity in the interests of the end consumer and of ensuring the security of the electricity system, imposes on operators which own installations or groups of installations which are considered, on the basis of the criteria laid down by the national regulatory authority, to be essential in order to meet the requirements of the demand for electricity of dispatching services, the obligation to submit bids on the national electricity markets in accordance with conditions pre-determined by that authority, provided that that legislation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective which it pursues. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that condition is met in the case before it.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (formerly Merck & Co.) v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-125/10) (1)

(Intellectual and industrial property - Patents - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Article 13 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Possibility of granting that certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date of the lodging of the basic patent application and the first marketing authorisation in the European Union is less than five years - Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 - Article 36 - Extension of the duration of the supplementary protection certificate)

2012/C 32/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., formerly Merck & Co. Inc.

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Possibility of granting the certificate if the period of time between the filing of the application for the basic patent and the date of first authorisation for marketing in the Community is shorter than five years

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, read in conjunction with Article 36 of Regulation No 1901/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that medicinal products can be the object of the grant of a supplementary protection certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date of lodging the basic patent application and the first marketing authorisation in the European Union is less than five years. In such a case, the period of the paediatric extension provided for by the latter regulation starts to run from the date determined by deducting from the patent expiry date the difference between five years and the duration of the period which elapsed between the lodging of the patent application and the grant of the first marketing authorisation.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — T.G. van Laarhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-594/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Right to deduct input tax - Limitation - Use of goods forming part of the assets of a business for the private use of the taxable person - Fiscal treatment of private use of goods that are assets of the business)

2012/C 98/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T.G. van Laarhoven

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Exclusion of the right to deduct — National rules limiting deduction of VAT for vehicles used by a businessman for both private and professional purposes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, read together with Article 11A(1)(c) of the same directive, must be interpreted as precluding national fiscal legislation which initially authorises a taxable person whose passenger vehicles are used for both business and private purposes to deduct input value added tax immediately and in full, but which subsequently provides, as regards private use of those vehicles, for annual taxation based — for determining the taxable amount of value added tax owed in a given financial year — on a flat-rate method of calculating expenses relating to such use which does not take account on a proportional basis of the actual extent of that private use.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
1.

The only principles and provisions of international law, from among those mentioned by the referring court, that can be relied upon, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings and for the purpose of assessing the validity of Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, are: — first, within the limits of review as to a manifest error of assessment attributable to the European Union regarding its competence, in the light of those principles, to adopt that directive: — the principle that each State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its airspace, — the principle that no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty, and — the principle which guarantees freedom to fly over the high seas, — and second: — Articles 7 and 11(1) and (2)(c) of the Air Transport Agreement concluded on 25 and 30 April 2007 between the United States of America, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, as amended by the Protocol, and — Article 15(3) of that agreement, read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3(4) thereof.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary for recovery, in accordance with Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2008/723/EC of 18 July 2007 on State aid C 37/05 (ex NN 11/04) implemented by Greece — tax-exempt reserve fund, of the aid held unlawful and incompatible with the internal market, excepting the aid referred to in Article 1(2) and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 to 6 of that decision;