ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/21

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Susanne Leichenich v Ansbert Peffekoven, Ingo Horeis

(Case C-532/11) (1)

(Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT - Exemptions - Article 13B(b) - Leasing or letting of immovable property - Houseboat, without a system of propulsion, permanently attached alongside a riverbank - Leasing of the houseboat, including the landing stage, the plot of land and the area of water contiguous therewith - Exclusive use for the permanent operation of a restaurant-discotheque - Single supply)

2013/C 9/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Susanne Leichenich

Defendant: Ansbert Peffekoven, Ingo Horeis,

Interveners in support of the defendants: Dr. Leyh, Dr. Kossow & Dr. Ott KG, Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, Steuerberatungsgesellschaft

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth 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) — Scope of the VAT exemption provided for under that provision for the leasing or letting of immovable property — Leasing of an area of water and a boat intended for commercial use as a restaurant and nightclub

Operative part of the judgment

1. On a proper interpretation of Article 13B(b) 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, the concept of the leasing or letting of immovable property includes the leasing of a houseboat, including the space and the landing stage contiguous therewith, which is fixed by attachments which are not easily removable to the bank and bed of a river, stays in a demarcated and identifiable location in the river water and is exclusively used, according to the terms of the leasing contract, for the permanent operation of a restaurant-discotheque at that location. That leasing constitutes a single exempt supply, without it being necessary to distinguish between the leasing of the houseboat and that of the landing stage.

2. Such a houseboat does not constitute a vehicle within the meaning of Article 13B(b), point 2, of the Sixth Directive 77/388.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Iwona Szyrocka v SiGer Technologie GmbH

(Case C-215/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Application for an order which does not comply with the formal requirements laid down by national law - Exhaustive nature of the requirements to be met by the application - Whether it is possible to claim the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal)

2013/C 38/04

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iwona Szyrocka

Defendant: SiGer Technologie GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Interpretation of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) — Application for a European order for payment not complying with the formal requirements laid down by the regulation on the one hand, and by national legislation on the other — Law applicable to the procedure for completion or rectification of the application — Possibility of claiming interest on the debt from the date upon which interest becomes due until the date of payment

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure must be interpreted as governing exhaustively the requirements to be met by an application for a European order for payment. Pursuant to Article 25 of that regulation and subject to the conditions laid down therein, the national court remains free to determine the amount of the court fees in accordance with rules laid down by domestic law, provided that those rules are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and do not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by European Union law.

2. Articles 4 and 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1896/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding a claimant from demanding, in an application for a European order for payment, interest for the period from the date on which it falls due until the date of payment of the principal.

3. Where the defendant is ordered to pay to the claimant the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal, the national court is free to determine the way in which the European order for payment form, set out in Annex V to Regulation No 1896/2006, is to be completed in practice, provided that the form thus completed enables the defendant, first, to be fully aware of the decision that he is required to pay the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal and, second, to identify clearly the rate of interest and the date from which that interest is claimed.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/13

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rovigo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Md Sagor

(Case C-430/11) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - National legislation providing for a fine which may be replaced by an order for expulsion or home detention)

2013/C 26/23

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Rovigo

Party in the main proceedings

Md Sagor

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Rovigo — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine of between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 on a foreign national who unlawfully enters or stays in the national territory — Whether it is possible for an illegal stay to constitute a criminal offence — Whether it is possible to replace the fine with immediate expulsion for a period of not less than five years or a penalty entailing curtailment of liberty (‘permanenza domiciliare’) — Member States’ obligations during the period for transposition of a directive

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as:

— not precluding Member State legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which penalises illegal stays by third-country nationals by means of a fine which may be replaced by an expulsion order, and

— precluding Member State legislation which allows illegal stays by third-country nationals to be penalised by means of a home detention order without guaranteeing that the enforcement of that order must come to an end as soon as the physical transportation of the individual concerned out of that Member State is possible.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Köck v Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

(Case C-206/11) (1)

(Consumer protection - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market - Legislation of a Member State providing for prior authorisation of announcements of sales)

2013/C 63/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Köck

Defendant: Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), in particular Articles 3(1) and 5(5) — Legislation of a Member State prescribing prior authorisation for the announcement of a clearance sale

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national court from ordering the cessation of a commercial practice not covered by Annex I to that directive on the sole ground that the practice has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the competent administrative authority, without itself carrying out an assessment of the unfairness of the practice in question against the criteria set out in Articles 5 to 9 of that directive.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Heineken Nederland BV, Heineken NV v European Commission

(Case C-452/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Dutch beer market - Commission decision establishing a breach of Article 81 EC - Fines - Duration of the administrative procedure - Level of the fine)

2013/C 46/17

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Heineken Nederland BV, Heineken NV (represented by: T. Ottervanger and M. de Jong, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by M. Slotboom, advocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-240/07 Heineken Nederland and Heineken v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766 — Dutch beer market) in so far as the European Commission found that Heineken NV and Heineken Nederland BV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual consumers in the ‘on-trade’ sector in the Netherlands

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Patricia Dumont de Chassart v Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS)

(Case C-619/11) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 72, 78(2)(b) and 79(1)(a) - Family benefits for orphans - Aggregation of periods of insurance and employment - Periods completed by the surviving parent in another Member State - Not taken into account)

2013/C 114/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Patricia Dumont de Chassart

Defendant: Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 17 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, and of Articles 72 and 79(1) 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 (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Allowances for orphans to be paid by the State of residence — Admissibility, as regards the principles of equality and non-discrimination, of a Community provision that makes the acquisition of entitlement to allowances conditional on the deceased parent having completed certain insurance periods but not the surviving parent — More favourable national legislation which also allows the surviving parent to benefit under rules equating periods of insurance — Less favourable treatment of workers who are surviving parents and have exercised their right to freedom of movement — Discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

Article 72, Article 78(2)(b) and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 79(1) 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, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1399/1999 of 29 April 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national legislation of a Member State provides that a right to benefits for orphans can be established by both the deceased parent and the surviving parent, provided that they have the status of employed persons, those provisions of European Union law require that periods of insurance and employment completed by the surviving parent in another Member State be taken into account in the aggregation of the periods necessary to acquire the right to benefits in the first of those Member States. In that regard, it is not relevant that the surviving parent cannot rely on any period of insurance or employment in that Member State during the reference period laid down by that national legislation for the acquisition of that right.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
2.

Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ of a duration such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to air passengers laid down in those provisions must be complied with, and the validity of those provisions is not affected. However, an air passenger may only obtain, by way of compensation for the failure of the air carrier to comply with its obligation referred to in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care, reimbursement of the amounts which, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proved necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for the shortcomings of the air carrier in the provision of care to that passenger, a matter which is for the national court to assess.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-565/11) (1)

(Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law - National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax - Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax - Non-compliance with European Union law - Principle of effectiveness)

2013/C 164/08

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mariana Irimie

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Sibiu — Interpretation of the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality, and of Article 6 TEU and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to restrict the amount which may be obtained by way of compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of the breach of European Union law by a Member State — Reimbursement of statutory interest relating to a tax refund

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as precluding a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the interest granted on repayment of a tax which was levied in breach of European Union law to that accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of that tax.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
2.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that: — the concept of ‘significant imbalance’ to the detriment of the consumer must be assessed in the light of an analysis of the rules of national law applicable in the absence of any agreement between the parties, in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the contract places the consumer in a less favourable legal situation than that provided for by the national law in force. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of that consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out; — in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations. Article 3(3) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the annex to which that provision refers contains only an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Hungary) — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Oskar Shomodi

(Case C-254/11) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - ‘Local border traffic’ at the external land borders of the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Maximum duration of stay - Rules for calculation)

2013/C 156/05

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége

Defendant: Oskar Shomodi

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Interpretation of Article 2(a)(3), points 3 and 5 of Council and Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of 20 December 2006 Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention (OJ 2006 L 405, p. 1), and of the other relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis — Rejection of the application to enter the territory of a Member State made by a national of a third country in the context of the regime governing local border traffic, on the ground that the cumulative total of individual stays undertaken by the person concerned in the Member State at issue during the six-month period preceding the application for entry in question had exceeded the maximum permissible duration — Rules for calculation of the maximum duration of stay under the local border traffic regime

Operative part of the judgment

1. Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of a local border traffic permit granted under the special local border traffic regime established by that regulation must be able, within the limits laid down in that regulation and in the bilateral agreement concluded for its implementation between the third country of which he is a national and the neighbouring Member State, to move freely within the border area for a period of three months if his stay is uninterrupted and to have a new right to a three-month stay each time that his stay is interrupted.

2. Article 5 of Regulation No 1931/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that there is an interruption of stay, as referred to in that provision, upon the crossing of the border between the neighbouring Member State and the third country in which the holder of the local border traffic permit resides, in accordance with the conditions laid down in that permit, irrespective of the frequency of such crossings, even if they occur several times daily.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium)) — RVS Levensverzekeringen NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-243/11) (1)

(Direct life assurance - Annual tax on assurance transactions - Directive 2002/83/EC - Articles 1(1)(g) and 50 - Definition of ‘Member State of the commitment’ - Assurance undertaking established in the Netherlands - Policyholder having taken out an assurance contract in the Netherlands and transferred his habitual residence to Belgium after the contract was concluded - Freedom to provide services)

2013/C 114/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: RVS Levensverzekeringen NV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 50 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) — National rule subjecting insurance transactions to an annual tax when the risk is situated in Belgium, either because the natural person insured is habitually resident there or because the legal person insured is established there — Assurance undertaking established in the Netherlands, without any presence in Belgium except for one of its policyholders, who moved to Belgium after the contract was concluded — Place of taxation — Article 49 and Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from collecting an indirect tax on life assurance premiums paid by policyholders who are natural persons having their habitual residence in that Member State, when the assurance contracts concerned were taken out in another Member State in which those policyholders had their habitual residence on the date the contracts were taken out.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.