ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Zollamt Linz Wels v Laki DOOEL

(Case C-351/10) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation implementing the Customs Code - Articles 555(1)(c) and 558(1) - Vehicle which has entered the customs territory under the temporary importation procedure with total relief from import duties - Vehicle used for internal traffic - Unlawful use - Incurring of a customs debt - National authorities competent to levy customs duties)

2011/C 226/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zollamt Linz Wels

Defendant: Laki DOOEL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 204(1)(a) and 215 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), Articles 555(1)(c) and 558(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and Article 61 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Transport of goods by road in the European Union — Use of a vehicle that is not authorised in the Member State of destination of the goods — Place where the customs debt arises — Competence of the Member State of origin or of the Member State of destination

Operative part of the judgment

Article 555(1) and Article 558(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the irregularity in respect of the use of a vehicle imported into the European Union under the temporary importation procedure with total relief from import duties which is used for internal traffic must be regarded as occurring at the moment of crossing the border of the Member State in which the vehicle is used in breach of the national provisions in the field of transport, that is to say, without authorisation to unload given by the Member State of unloading, the authorities of that Member State being responsible for levying those duties.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — Pacific World Limited, FDD International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-215/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Moulded plastic false nail sets - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 - Other articles of plastics (heading 3926) - Manicure or pedicure preparations (heading 3304) - Manicure or pedicure sets and instruments (heading 8214))

2011/C 298/12

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pacific World Limited, FDD International Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 of 28 November 2007 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature — Validity of the classification of moulded plastic false nails under heading 3926 90 97 (Other articles of plastics or other materials)

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 of 28 November 2007 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is valid in so far as it classifies the false nails and, thereby, the false nail sets described in its annex under subheading 3926 90 97 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — European Air Transport SA v Collège d’environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

(Case C-120/10) (1)

(Air transport - Directive 2002/30/EC - Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports - Noise level limits that must be observed when overflying built-up areas near an airport)

2011/C 311/13

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Air Transport SA

Defendants: Collège d’environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 2(e), 4(4) and 6(2) of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40) — Limits on noise levels to be complied with by aircraft over-flying urban territories located near an airport — Concept of ‘operating restrictions’ — Restrictions adopted in connection with aircraft which are marginally compliant — Whether it is possible to impose such restrictions on the basis of the noise level as measured on the ground — Effect of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(e) of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘operating restriction’ is a prohibition, absolute or temporary, that prevents the access of a civil subsonic jet aeroplane to a European Union airport. Consequently, national environmental legislation imposing limits on maximum noise levels, as measured on the ground, to be complied with by aircraft overflying areas located near the airport, does not itself constitute an ‘operating restriction’ within the meaning of that provision, unless, in view of the relevant economic, technical and legal contexts, it can have the same effect as prohibitions of access to the airport in question.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Lotta Gistö

(Case C-270/10) (1)

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Article 14, first paragraph - Determination of the domicile for tax purposes of the spouse of a European Union official - National legislation under which a person who has lived abroad for three years is no longer regarded as resident in the country and thus no longer subject to general tax liability)

2011/C 298/13

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lotta Gistö

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 14 (now Article 13) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union — Fixing of the residence for tax purposes of officials of the European Union and their spouses not separately engaged in a gainful occupation in the Member State of origin — National legislation laying down a rule for nationals under which, after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which the national left the country, he is no longer regarded as resident in the country and hence no longer has general tax liability as regards his income

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, originally annexed to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities and subsequently, by virtue of the Treaty of Amsterdam, to the EC Treaty, must be interpreted as meaning that the spouse of a person who, solely because that person enters the service of the European Union, establishes his residence in the territory of a Member State other than his Member State of domicile for tax purposes at the time when that person entered the service of the European Union is regarded as having maintained his domicile for tax purposes in the latter Member State if he is not separately engaged in a gainful occupation.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 — Deutsche Post AG, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-463/10 P and C-475/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 10(3) - Decision requiring the production of information - Act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU)

2011/C 355/10

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2010 in Case T-570/08 Deutsche Post v Commission by which the General Court upheld a plea of inadmissibility put forward by the Commission and accordingly dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008 requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG — Misinterpretation of ‘challengeable act’ for the purposes of Article 230 EC — Failure to have regard to the nature and legal consequences of the contested act — Infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 14 July 2010, Deutsche Post v Commission (T-570/08), and Germany v Commission (T-571/08).

2. Dismisses the objections of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission before the General Court of the European Union.

3. Refers the cases back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the pleas of Deutsche Post AG (T-570/08) and the Federal Republic of Germany (T-571/08) for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008 ordering the Federal Republic of Germany to provide information in the proceedings concerning State aid in favour of Deutsche Post AG.

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
1.

Declares that — by failing to establish, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, conservation priorities in relation to the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region identified by the Commission Decision of 28 December 2001 adopting the list of sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (OJ 2002 L 5, p. 16), and — by failing to adopt and apply, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the appropriate conservation measures and a protection system to prevent the deterioration of habitats and significant disruption to species, ensuring the legal protection of the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites referred to in Decision 2002/11/EC situated in Spanish territory, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43/EEC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/15

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Tanoarch s.r.o. v Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-504/10) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Right of deduction - Assignment of a share in the rights relating to an invention, held by a number of undertakings, to an undertaking which has the right to use that invention in its entirety - Abusive practice)

2011/C 370/23

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tanoarch s.r.o.

Defendant: Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof — Transfer of some of the rights over an invention, held by various undertakings, to an undertaking already having the right to use the said invention in its entirety — Possible existence of a right to deduct input tax

Operative part of the judgment

1. A taxpayer may, in principle, claim a right of deduction of input VAT paid or payable for the supply of a service, carried out for consideration, where the applicable national law permits the assignment of a share of the co-ownership of an invention which confers rights relating to the invention.

2. It is for the referring court to establish, taking into account all the factual circumstances characterising the supply of the service in the case in the main proceedings, whether or not there has been an abuse of rights with regard to the right of deduction of input VAT.

(1) OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 362/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — PepsiCo, Inc., v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-281/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 5, 6, 10 and 25(1)(d) - Community design - Registered Community design representing a circular promotional item - Prior Community design - Different overall impression - Degree of freedom of the designer - Informed user - Scope of review by the Courts - Distortion of the facts)

2011/C 362/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PepsiCo, Inc., (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado, and V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, abogada), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07 Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM — Pepsico, by which that Court upheld an action brought by the proprietor of Community design No 53186 1 against decision R 1001/2005-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 October 2006, annulling the decision of the Invalidity Division which declared design No 74463 1 (‘promotional item[s] for games’) invalid

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders PepsiCo Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
2.

In the case where the national court takes the view that it cannot rule on the dispute before it under Article 6(2)(a) of that convention, Article 6(2)(b) of the Rome Convention must be interpreted as follows: — the concept of ‘the place of business through which the employee was engaged’ must be understood as referring exclusively to the place of business which engaged the employee and not to that with which the employee is connected by his actual employment; — the possession of legal personality does not constitute a requirement which must be fulfilled by the place of business of the employer within the meaning of that provision; — the place of business of an undertaking other than that which is formally referred to as the employer, with which that undertaking has connections, may be classified as a ‘place of business’, within the meaning of Article 6(2)(b) of that convention, if there are objective factors enabling an actual situation to be established which differs from that which appears from the terms of the contract, and even though the authority of the employer has not been formally transferred to that other undertaking.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-157/10) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Prohibition of deducting tax due but not recovered in another Member State)

2012/C 32/12

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Corporation tax — National legislation and convention on double taxation prohibiting the deduction of tax due but not recovered in other Member States for income obtained on their territory

Operative part of the judgment

Article 67 of the EEC Treaty and Article 1 of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (article repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) do not preclude national rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of corporation tax and within the framework of provisions for the avoidance of double taxation, prohibit the deduction of amounts of tax due in other Member States of the European Union on income subject to corporation tax and obtained in their territory where those amounts, though due, are not paid by virtue of an exemption, a credit or any other tax benefit, in so far as those rules are not discriminatory as compared with the treatment applied to interest obtained in that Member State, it being for the national court to establish whether that is the case.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny Izba Finansowa Wydzial I — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Kraft Foods Polska SA

(Case C-588/10) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Price reduction after the transaction was effected - National legislation which makes reduction in the taxable amount subject to the requirement that the supplier of the goods or services be in possession of acknowledgment of receipt of a correcting invoice by the purchaser of the goods or services - Principle of VAT neutrality - Principle of proportionality)

2012/C 73/07

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny Izba Finansowa Wydzial I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Kraft Foods Polska SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxable amount — Price reduction after the transaction was effected — National legislation which makes reduction in the taxable amount subject to the other party to the contract obtaining and confirming receipt of a corrected invoice

Operative part of the judgment

The requirement that, in order to be entitled to reduce the taxable amount as set out in the initial invoice, the taxable person must be in possession of acknowledgment of receipt of a correcting invoice by the purchaser of the goods or services constitutes a condition for the purpose Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

The principles of the neutrality of value added tax and proportionality do not, in principle, preclude such a requirement. However, where it is impossible or excessively difficult for the taxable person who is a supplier of goods or services to obtain such acknowledgment of receipt within a reasonable period of time, he cannot be denied the opportunity of establishing, by other means, before the national tax authorities of the Member State concerned, first, that he has taken all the steps necessary in the circumstances of the case to satisfy himself that the purchaser of the goods or services is in possession of the correcting invoice and is aware of it and, second, that the transaction in question was in fact carried out in accordance with the conditions set out in the correcting invoice.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
1.

European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member States to define the concept of ‘workers who have an employment contract or an employment relationship’ in Clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997 which appears in the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, and, in particular, to determine whether judges fall within that concept, subject to the condition that that does not lead to the arbitrary exclusion of that category of persons from the protection offered by Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, and that agreement. An exclusion from that protection may be allowed only if the relationship between judges and the Ministry of Justice is, by its nature, substantially different from that between employers and their employees falling, according to national law, under the category of workers.